i'. 


T’i* 

'-Mi 


< 


'  . 


K*.' 


r 


/  . 


2r,^ 


•  i' 


f 


r4:.  .o, 


t 

L’’ 


V  • 


t 


■  t 


.1  . 


k^  '  -  /  ' 

I 


'y 


'■  V-'  '•  ■ 


,  '  S'.  ■ 


tv’  ,  '■  ' 


m:  ® If |»i '  •  :'^ 


<  , 

- 


,  ,v  ^ 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2018  with  funding  from 
Getty  Research  institute 


https://archive.org/detaiis/romanesquescuiptOOport 


ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 


OF  THE  PILGRIMAGE  ROADS 


ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

OF  THE  PILGRIMAGE  ROADS 

BY 

A.  KINGSLEY  PORTER 


IN  TEN  VOLUMES 

Volume  I 

TEXT 


BOSTON 

MARSHALL  JONES  COMPANY 
1923 


COPYRIGHT,  1923 

A.  KINGSLEY  PORTER 


PRINTED  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  OF  AMERICA 


CONTENTS 


List  of  Dated  Monuments  . xv 

PART  I  :  CLUNY 

I.  The  Chronological  Problem . 3 

Dated  Monuments  of  Lombardy  and  French  Chronology  (3) 

—  French  Monuments  the  documented  Date  of  which  is  not 
admitted  (3)  —  Hypothetical  Reconstructions  (4)  —  Mon¬ 
uments  of  accepted  Date  (5)  —  The  two  Lists  not  inconsis¬ 
tent  (6)  —  The  Chronological  Theory  (6)  —  Theoretical 
Prepossessions  (6)  —  Errors  in  Archaeological  Dating  (6) 

—  Surprise  of  Archaeologists  at  established  Dates  (8)  — 
Conflict  between  Documents  and  Theory  (9)  —  History 
of  the  Theory  (9)  —  De  Caumont  (9)  —  Lefevre-Pontalis 
(10)  — The  Morienval  Controversy  (10)  —  Fallacy  of  the 
Solution  (ii)  — Extension  of  the  Theory  (ii)  —  Caution 
against  too  early  Dating  (la)  —  Absence  of  Caution 
against  too  late  Dating  (12)  — Artistic  Hegemony  of  Ile-de- 
France  assumed  (12)  —  Anomalies  of  Romanesque  Chronol- 
ogy  (13)  —  False  Conception  of  the  Theory  of  Evolution 
(14)  — True  Character  of  Romanesque  Development  (15) 

—  Crude  Works  are  not  necessarily  early  (15)  —  Early 
Works  are  not  necessarily  crude  (15) — Tympanum  of 
Troia  (15)  —  Lack  of  Progress  in  Romanesque  Art  (16)  — 
Changes  which  did  take  Place  (16)  —  The  rejected  Docu¬ 
ments  are  trustworthy  (17). 

II.  The  Eleventh  Century  . 18 

The  Byzantine  Renaissance  (18)  —  St.-Genis-des-Fontaines 
(19) — Arles-sur-Tech  (19)  —  Bible  of  Roda  (20)  —  St.- 
Andre-de-Sorrede  (20)  —  Crossed  Legs  (21)  —  Early  Stone 
Sculpture  in  Europe  (21)  —  Charlieu  (22)  —  Basse-Oeuvre 
of  Beauvais  (22)  —  Dax  (22)  —  Azay-le-Rideau  (23)  —  St.- 
Mesme  of  Chinon  (23)  —  Selles-sur-Cher  (24)  —  The  Berlin 


VI 


CONTENTS 


Ivory  (24)  —  Eglise  de  Ronceray  of  Angers  (25)  —  Selles 
again  (25)  —  La  Celle-Bruere  (26)  —  Dax  again  (26)  —  La 
Sauve  Majeure  (27)  —  St.-Genis  again  (27)  —  Double 
Aureole  (28)  —  German  Influence  in  Catalonia  (29)  —  Ben¬ 
edictine  and  Cluniac  (30) — Acceptus  (31)  —  Canosa, 
Siponto  and  Monte  S.  Angelo  pulpits  (31)  —  Tomb  of  St. 
Isarne  at  Marseille  (32)  —  St. -Victor  of  Marseille  (32)  — 
Sculptures  of  St.  Emmeran  at  Regensburg  (33)  —  Tomb  of 
St. -Front  at  Perigueux  (34)  —  Doors  of  Hildesheim  (34)  — 
Hildesheim  column  (35) — Other  works  in  metal  (35)  — 

Area  Santa  of  Oviedo  (35)  —  Advancement  of  Sculpture  in 
the  XI  Century  (36). 

III.  Early  Spanish  Ivories . 37 

Area  of  San  Millan  de  la  Cogolla  (37)  —  German  Influence 
(38)  —  Leon  Casket  (38)  —  S.  Isidore  Crucifix  (39)  — 
Pamplona  Box  (40)  —  San  Marcos  Crucifix  (40) — Jaca 
Book-Cover  (41)  —  Area  de  San  Felices  (41)  —  New  York 
Crucifix  (41)  —  New  York  Journey  to  Emmaus  and  Noli 
me  tangere  (42)  —  Comparison  with  Toulouse  Apostles  (42) 

—  Southern  French  or  Spanish?  (43). 

IV.  Santo  Domingo  de  Silos . 44 

Dated  capital  (44)  —  Pier  Reliefs  by  the  same  Hand  (44)  — 
Motive  of  Arches  (45)  —  Canopies  (45)  —  Hand  raised, 

Palm  outwards  (47) — Gothic-like  Capitals  (49) — Pointed 
and  round  Shields  (49) — Armour  (50) — Flame-shaped  Peb¬ 
bles  (50)  —  Crossed  Legs  (51)  —  Neck-Slit  (51)  —  Chin 
Armour  (51)  —  Drawing  of  Arms  (51)  —  Movement  (52) 

—  Clinging  Draperies  (52)  —  Hair  and  Beard  Conventions 
(52)  —  Handling  of  Groups  (53)  —  Harpies  (53)  —  Line 
and  Delicacy  (53)  —  Comparison  with  Moissac  Cloister  (53) 

—  Influence  of  Benedictine  Art  (55)  —  Analogies  with  Eng¬ 
lish  Sculptures  and  Miniatures  (55)  —  Beatus  Manuscripts 
(56) — Aesthetic  Achievement  at  Santo  Domingo  (56)  — 

.  .  Influence  upon  later  Art  (57)  —  The  Virgin  of  Sahagun  (57). 

V.  The  Bari  Throne  . 59 

The  Bari  Throne  (59)  —  Dated  1098  (59)  —  The  Monopoli 
Archivolt  (59)  —  The  Acerenza  Archivolt  (59)  —  Relation¬ 
ship  to  St.-Gilles  (59)  —  Origin  of  the  Master  of  the  Bari 
Throne  (60)  —  Apulia  and  Lombardy  (61)  —  Pontida  (61) 


CONTENTS 


Vll 


—  The  Porta  dei  Leoni  (62)  —  Its  Date  (62)  —  Comparison 
with  Pontida  (62)  —  Comparison  with  the  Porta  della  Pes- 
cheria  (63)  —  Comparison  with  Angouleme  (63)  —  Motive 
of  Cavaliers  jousting  (64)  — The  Bayeaux  “Tapestry”  (65) 

—  Modena  influenced  Bari  (66)  —  Bari  also  influenced 
Modena  (66)  —  Origins  of  Lombard-Apulian  Art  (66)  — 
Apulian  Art  and  Guglielmo  (67)  —  Was  Guglielmo  a  Nor¬ 
man?  (67) — Architecture  of  Modena  influenced  by  Bari 
(67)  —  Architecture  of  Bari  influenced  by  Modena  (67)  — 

Bari  and  S.  Ambrogio  of  Milan  (67)  —  Throne  of  Monte  S. 
Angelo  (68)  —  Eastern  Influence  (69)  —  Convention  for 
manes  (69)  —  Byzantine  Animals  (69)  —  Spiral  Curls  (70) 

—  Square  Wings  (70)  —  Monopoli  Architrave  (70)  — Angels 
at  Arles  (70). 

VI.  Cluny . 71 

The  inner  Tympanum  of  Charlieu  (71)  —  Its  Date  (71)  — 
Zig-zag  Drapery  Edges  (72)  —  Comparison  with  Monu¬ 
ments  of  the  XI  Century  (72)  —  The  Lintel  of  Charlieu  (73) 

—  Angels  holding  an  Aureole  (74)  —  Motive  of  Coptic  Ori¬ 
gin  (74)  —  Later  examples  (75)  —  Other  Traces  of  Byzan¬ 
tine  Influence  (75)  —  Mont-St. -Vincent  (76)  —  Chateau- 
neuf  (77)  —  Capitals  of  Cluny  (77)  —  Aesthetic  Beauty 
(78)  —  Iconography  (78)  —  The  Art  of  Music  (78)  — 
Influence  of  Gunzo  (79)  —  Illustrative  Qualities  (79)  — 
History  of  the  Building  at  Cluny  (80)  —  Rapidity  of  the 
Construction  (82)  —  Not  unprecedented  (83)  —  Style  of 
the  Capitals  (84)  —  Not  that  of  the  second  Half  of  the  XII 
Century  (85)  —  St.-Andre-le-Bas  of  Vienne  (85)  —  Cluny 
Capitals  not  of  second  Quarter  of  the  XII  Century  (86)  — 
Naturalistic  Foliage  (86)  — Analogies  and  Precedents  (87) 

—  Comparison  of  Cluny  and  Saulieu  (87)  —  Date  of  Vezelay 
(88) — Adam  and  Eve  Capital  (89) — Vezelay  compared 
with  St. -Denis  and  Moreaux  (90)  —  Vezelay  compared 
with  Autun  (91)  —  Vezelay  compared  with  Moutier-St.- 
Jean  (91) — Vezelay  compared  with  Modena  (91)  — 
Comparison  of  Vezelay  and  Cluny  (91)  — Adam  and  Eve 
Capitals  (91)  —  Rivers  of  Paradise  Capitals  (92)  —  Capi¬ 
tals  of  Four  Winds  (93)  —  Vezelay  Capital  of  Luxury  (93) 

— Vezelay  Hunting  Capital  (93) — Vezelay  Capital  of  Daniel 
(94)  —  Aureole  Capitals  at  Savigny  and  St.-Nectaire  (94) 

—  The  “Cluny  Master”  of  Vezelay  (95) — The  “  Bath- 
sheba  Master”  (95)  —  Comparison  of  Cluny  and  Santo 


CONTENTS 


Domingo  de  Silos  (96)  —  Comparison  with  Benedictine  Art 
(96)  —  Elongation  (96)  —  Wattling  (97)  —  Pointed  Arches 
(98)  —  Comparison  with  Madrid  Crucifix  (98)  —  Influence 
of  the  School  of  Winchester  Manuscripts  (98)  —  Cluny 
Capitals  were  executed  between  1088  and  1095  (loi)  — 
Mediaeval  Capitals  were  carved  before  being  placed  (loi) — 
Representations  of  Sculptors  at  Work  (102)  —  Experience 
at  Bryn  Athyn  (102)  —  Marcilhac  (103)  —  Romans  (103) 
—  Corme  Royale  (103)  —  S.  Ambrogio  of  Milan  (104)  — 
Gerona  (104)  —  Unfinished  Capitals  (105)  —  Sculptures 
executed  at  the  Beginning  of  the  Work  (105)  —  Church 
of  the  Annunciation  at  Nazareth  (105)  — Venosa  (105)  — 
Donzy  (106)  —  Pilgrimage  Churches  (107)  —  Capital  from 
Nave  of  Cluny  (107)  —  The  destroyed  Portal  of  Cluny 
(108)  —  Influence  of  Roman  Mosaics  (108). 

VIE  The  Diffusion  of  Cluniac  Art  in  Burgundy 

Tympanum  of  Vezelay  (109) — Tympanum  of  Autun  (109) 
—  The  Last  Judgment  (no)  —  Influence  of  Miniatures 
(no) — Leg  bands  (in)  —  Miniatures  of  the  School  of 
Winchester  (in)  —  Date  of  Autun  (112)  —  Comparison 
with  Vezelay  (112)  —  Comparison  with  Saulieu  (113)  — 
Comparison  of  Saulieu  and  Vezelay  (113)  —  Date  of  Sau¬ 
lieu  (114)  —  Moutier-St.-Jean  (114)  —  Comparison  of  Au¬ 
tun  and  Saulieu  continued  (115)  —  Comparison  of  Autun 
and  Moutier-St.-Jean  (115)  —  Dijon  Majestas  Doynini  (116) 
—  Dijon  Last  Supper  (116) — Tomb  of  St.  Lazare  (117) 
—  Avenas  (118)  —  Refectory  Relief  of  Charlieu  (119)  — 
St.-Amour  (119) — Perrecey-les-Forges  (120) — Anzy-le- 
Duc  capitals  (120)  —  St.-Parize-le-Chatel  (120) — Anzy- 
le-Duc  portals  (121)  —  Neuilly-en-Donjon  (121) — Later 
Work  at  Charlieu  (121)  —  St.-Julien-de-Jonzy  (122)  — 
Montceaux-l’Etoile  (122)  —  St.-Paul-de-Varax  (122)  — 
St. -Vincent  of  Macon  (122)  —  St.-Sauveur-de-Nevers  (122) 
—  Relationship  with  Fontevrault  (123)  —  Mavo  (123) — - 
Relationship  with  Vezelay  (123)  —  The  Dijon  Last  Supper 
by  the  same  Hand  (123)  —  Donzy  (124)  —  A  Work  of  the 
Master  of  Charlieu  (124)  —  La  Charite-sur-Loire  (125)  — 
Comparison  with  Montmorillon  and  Chartres  (125)  — 
Gamma  Wings  (125)  —  Souvigny  (128)  —  St.-Menoux 
(129)  —  Ebreuil  (129)  —  Ste.-Magnance  (129)  —  Bois- 
Ste.-Marie  (130)  —  Ivry-la-Bataille  (130)  — Avallon  (130) 
—  St.-Benigne  of  Dijon  (130)  —  Semur-en-Brionnais  (131). 


CONTENTS 


IX 


VIII.  The  Diffusion  of  Cluniac  Art  Outside  of  Burgundy  132 

Tympana  with  Aureoles  (132) — Origin  of  the  Motive  (132)  — 

Its  Diffusion  (132) — The  Lintel  with  Apostles  (133)  — 
Arched  Lintels  (133)  —  Witnesses  of  the  Apocalypse  (134) 

—  Tympanum  of  Cluny  (135)  —  Copied  at  Moissac  (135) 

—  Burgundian  Influence  at  Moissac  (135)  —  Date  of  the 
Moissac  tympanum  (137)  —  Statue  of  the  Abbot  Roger 
(137)  —  Sculptures  of  Moissac  Porch  (137)  — Tympanum 
has  been  moved  (138)  —  Date  established  by  Comparison 
with  Monuments  of  Burgundy  (138)  —  Rib  Vault  of  Mois¬ 
sac  Porch  (139)  —  History  of  the  Rib  Vault  (139)  —  Other 
Copies  of  the  Tympanum  of  Cluny  (140)  —  Tympana  with 
the  Majestas  Domini  (140)  —  Tympana  with  the  Ascension 
(141) — The  sculptured  Tympanum  did  not  originate  in 
France  (141)  —  The  four  and  twenty  Elders  (141)  —  Mo¬ 
tive  originated  in  Rome  (142)  —  Diffusion  of  the  Motive 
through  Cluny  (142)  —  Spandrel  Figures  (143)  —  Cluny 
Voussures  (144)  —  Development  of  Voussure  Sculptures 
(145) — Heads  in  Medallions  (145)  —  Bourg-Argental 
(145)  —  Influence  of  Nicolo  (146)  — Other  Sculptures  in  the 
Rhone  Valley  (147)  —  Relationship  with  S.  Orso  of  Aosta 

(148)  —  Influence  of  Cluny  upon  Germany  (149)  —  Upon 
Auvergne  (149)  —  The  Apostles  of  St.-Etienne  of  Toulouse 

(149)  —  Signature  of  Gilbert  (150) — Virgin  of  Solsona 

(150)  —  Gilbert’s  Assistant  at  St.-Etienne  (151)  —  Capi¬ 
tals  of  St.-Etienne  (151)  —  Work  of  Gilbert  and  a  third  As¬ 
sistant  (152)  —  Tomb  of  St.-Junien  by  same  Hand  (153)  — 

Date  of  St.-Junien  (155) — Comparison  with  St.-Gilles 
(156)  —  Column  of  Solsona  (157)  —  Gilbert  of  Toulouse 
and  Gilbert  of  Autun  (157)  —  Influence  of  Gilbert  in  the 
Pyrenees  (159) — The  School  of  Tuscany  (160) — The 
Cloister  of  La  Daurade  at  Toulouse  (160) — Autun  and 
Germany  (160) — Autun  and  Siena  (161)  —  Malmesbury 
(161)  —  Doors  of  St.  Marien  im  Kapitol  at  Cologne  (161) 

—  Burgundian  Influence  at  Chartres  (162)  —  Chartres  and 
Ada  Group  Ivories  (162)  —  The  Master  of  Etampes  (163) 

— ■  Chateaudun  (164)  —  Chartres  and  Etampes  (164)  — 

The  Canopies  of  Etampes  (164)  —  School  of  Vienne  (165) 

—  Capitals  at  Nazareth  (166). 


PART  II :  PILGRIMAGE  SCULPTURE 


1.  The  Pilgrimage  to  Compostela . 171 

Fascination  of  the  Pilgrimage  (171)  — The  Callistine  Codex 
(172)  — Authenticity  (174)  —  Date  (174)  —  Politics  (174) 

—  Cluniac  Priories  and  Affiliations  along  the  Road 
(175)  —  Economic  Aspects  of  the  Pilgrimage  (176)  —  San¬ 
tiago  and  Cluny  (176)  —  Toulouse  and  Cluny  (176)  —  The 
Pilgrimage  and  the  Moors  (177)  — Jerusalem  and  Rome 
(177)  —  Relics  along  the  Road  (177)  —  Love  of  Wander¬ 
ing  (178)  —  Facilities  for  Travel  (179)  —  Art  and  the  Pil¬ 
grimage  (179)  —  Monuments  along  the  Road  (179)  —  Cluny 
the  Champion  of  Art  (180)  —  Spanish  Sculpture  and  the 
Road  (180) — Western  French  Sculpture  and  the  Road 

(181)  —  Lombard  Sculpture  and  the  Road  (181)  —  Pil¬ 
grimage  Routes  in  Italy  (182) — Normandy  and  Apulia 

(182)  —  Modena  (183)  —  Pilgrimage  Centres  in  Italy  and 
Art  (183)  —  Influence  of  the  Orient  (184)  —  Armenia  (184) 

—  The  Holy  Sepulchre  and  its  Copies  (185)  —  The  Domed 
Churches  of  the  West  (185)  —  Lombard  Influence  fol¬ 
lowed  the  Pilgrimage  Roads  (186)  —  Rib  Vaults  (186)  — 
Cloisters  with  coupled  Columns  (186)  —  Crossed  Legs  (187) 

—  Le  Puy  and  Santiago  (187)  —  Constantines  of  Western 
France  (187)  — The  Motive  is  derived  from  the  East  not 
from  Rome  (188)  —  Other  Horsemen  (191)  —  Cycles  of  the 
Apostles  (192)  —  Architectural  Influence  of  Santiago  (193) 

—  St.-Martin  of  Tours  (193) — St.-Martial  of  Limoges 
(193)  —  The  Ambulatory  (193)  —  Diffusion  of  the  Santia- 
goan  Type  (194)  —  Flying  Buttresses  (195)  —  Gothic  Sculp¬ 
ture  in  Spain  and  the  Road  (195)  —  Gothic  Architecture 
and  the  Road  (195)  —  Stained  Glass  and  the  Road  (195)  — 

Van  Eyck  and  the  Road  (196)  —  Influence  upon  Art  of 
the  Pilgrimages  (196). 

IL  Moissac  and  Souillac . 197 

Romanesque  Sculpture  is  not  divided  by  the  modern  Franco- 
Spanish  Frontier  (197)  — One  Style  on  both  Slopes  of  the 
Pyrenees  (197)  —  French  Work  is  not  superior  to  Spanish 


CONTENTS 


XI 


(198)  —  Souillac  derived  from  Santo  Domingo  de  Silos  (199) 

—  Souillac  (199)  —  Porch  of  St. -Martin  of  Brive  (200)  — 
Capitals  of  St.-Martin  of  Brive  (200)  —  Pulpit  at  Volterra 
(200)  —  Its  Date  (202)  —  The  Porch  at  Moissac  (202)  — 
Reliefs  of  St.-Guilhem-le-Desert  (203)  —  The  Cloister  at 
Moissac  (203)  —  Comparison  with  Santo  Domingo  de  Silos 
(203)  —  Influence  of  Ivories  (204)  —  Analogies  with  Work 
of  Guglielmo  da  Modena  (205)  —  St.-Sernin  of  Toulouse 
(205)  —  Building  Dates  (205)  —  Rivalry  with  Santiago 
(205)  —  The  Ambulatory  Sculptures  (206)  —  Altar-frontals 
(207)  —  Comparison  with  the  Cloister  of  Moissac  (208)  — 
St.-Sernin  is  later  and  inferior  (209)  —  Spanish  Origin  of  the 
St.-Sernin  Reliefs  (209)  —  Comparison  with  Spanish  Ivories 
(209)  —  Comparison  with  Santo  Domingo  de  Silos  (209). 

III.  La  Puerta  de  las  Platerias . 21 1 

South  Portal  of  St.-Sernin  (21 1)  —  Comparison  with  the 
Puerta  de  las  Platerias  (21 1)  — The  latter  is  fragmentary 
(212)  —  Rebuilt  in  the  XII  Century  (212)  —  And  again  in 
the  XVII  Century  (212)  —  Lions  (213)  —  “Throne  of  the 
Popes”  at  Avignon  (213)  —  The  two  Reliefs  of  St.  James 

(214)  —  Analysis  of  Hands  (214)  —  The  Sign  of  the  Lion 

(215)  — The  Sculptor  of  the  St.-Sernin  Signs  (216) — Abra¬ 
ham  and  Isaac  sculptured  on  Jambs  (217) — Jamb  Fig¬ 
ures  at  Santiago  (217)  — History  and  Development  of  the 
Motive  (217)  —  Two  rival  Genaeologies  (222)  —  Recon¬ 
struction  of  St.-Denis  (222)  —  Suger  and  St.  Bernard  (223) 

—  St.-Denis  a  Compromise  (224)  —  Motives  borrowed  from 
many  Sources  (224)  —  Lombard  Influence  (224)  —  Mosaic 
Pavements  (224)  —  Holy-Water  Basin  at  Chamalieres  (225) 

—  A  Work  of  Nicold  (225)  —  Was  it  transported  from 
Italy?  (226)  —  Byzantine  Influence  at  Santiago  (226)  — 
Comparison  with  S.  Marco  at  Venice  (227)  —  Santillana 
del  Mar  (227)  —  Trilobed  Arch  (227)  —  Santiago  and 
Conques  (228)  —  Same  Pair  of  Sculptors  worked  at  both 

(229)  — Origin  of  these  Sculptors  (229) — One  Spanish 

(230)  —  The  Second  from  Conques  (230)  —  Early  Atelier 
of  Conques  (231)  —  Date  of  the  western  Tympanum  at 
Conques  (232)  —  The  Cross  in  the  Last  Judgment  (232)  — 
Archaeology  of  the  Buildings  at  Conques  (233)  —  Cler- 

'  mont-Ferrand  and  Conques  (234)  —  Analysis  of  Hands  at 

Clermont-Ferrand  (234)  —  Date  (234)  —  History  of  the 
Sculpture  of  Auvergne  (235)  — Influence  of  Souvigny  upon 


CONTENTS 


Clermont-Ferrand  (235)  —  Valence  (236)  —  Pedimented 
Lintels  (236)  —  Issoire  (236)  —  Vendome  (237)  —  Deriva¬ 
tives  of  the  Santiago  Flagellation  (238)  —  S.  Isidoro  of  Leon 

(238). 

IV,  Later  Pilgrimage  Sculpture . 240 

First  Period  of  Pilgrimage  Sculpture  ends  in  1124  (240)  — 
Burgundian  Influence  in  Second  (240)  —  St.-Etienne  of 
Toulouse  (240)  —  Influences  (241)  —  Date  (241)  —  Capi¬ 
tals  of  La  Daurade  (242)  —  Jamb  Sculptures  of  La  Daurade 
(243)  —  Relationship  with  St.-Etienne  and  with  Chartres 
(243)  —  The  Toulouse  Annunciation  (244)  —  Byzantine 
Origin  (244) — Valcabrere  (244)  —  St.-Bertrand-de-Com- 
minges  (245)  —  The  Virgin  under  a  Canopy  (245)  —  Beau- 
caire,  St.-Gilles,  Chartres,  Donzy,  Fontfroide  and  La  Dau¬ 
rade  (245)  —  Date  of  La  Daurade  (247)  —  Santillana  del 
Mar  (247)  —  Holy-Water  Basin  from  Narbonne  (248)  — 
Carrenac  and  Mauriac  (248)  —  Burgundian  Influence  at 
Mauriac  (249)  —  Cahors,  Souillac  and  Martel  (250)  — 

Area  of  Santo  Domingo  (251)  —  Carrion  de  los  Condes  (251) 

—  Limoges  Enamels  (251)  —  Derivation  and  Derivatives  of 
Carrion  (251)  —  Mimizan  (253)  —  Sahagun  (253)  —  San- 
giiesa  (254)  —  Ripoll  (255)  —  Estella,  Tudela  and  Sala¬ 
manca  (256)  —  Armentia  (256)  —  Relationship  to  Santo 
Domingo  de  Silos  (256)  —  Tetramorphs  (257) — Vaulting 
and  Pendentive  Sculptures  (258)  —  San  Martin  of  Segovia 
(258)  —  Ste.-Foy  of  Morlaas  and  Oloron-Ste.-Marie  (259) 

—  Reliefs  in  Cloister  of  Oviedo  and  Santillana  del  Mar 
(260)  —  San  Quirce  (260). 

V.  El  Portico  de  la  Gloria . 261 

The  Third  Period  of  Pilgrimage  Sculpture  (261)  —  The  Ovi¬ 
edo  Camara  Santa  (261)  —  Mateo  (262)  —  His  artistic 
Genaeology  (262)  —  Character  of  the  Portico  de  la  Gloria 
(263)  —  Derivatives  in  Spain  (263)  —  Bamberg  (264)  — 
Amiens  (265)  —  Chartres  (265)  —  St.-Guilhem-le-Desert 
(265)  —  Lausanne  (265)  —  York  (265)  —  Reims  (265)  — 

The  Smile  (265), 

VI.  St.-Gilles . 267 

The  Altar-Frontal  of  the  Cathedrale  Ancienne  of  Marseille 
(267)  —  A  dated  Monument  of  1122  (267)  —  Relationship 


CONTENTS 


with  Chartres  (267)  —  Maguelonne  (268)  —  Influences 
(269)  —  Date  (270)  —  Tomb  of  St.  Hilaire  (270)  —  Frieze 
of  Beaucaire  (271)  —  Derived  from  Santiago  (271)  —  Tym¬ 
panum  of  Beaucaire  (272)  —  Influence  of  Byzantine  Ivories 

(272)  —  Virgins  under  Canopies  (272)  —  Date  of  Beaucaire 

(273)  —  Angouleme  Master  at  St.-Gilles  (273)  —  Of  West¬ 
ern  Origin  (274)  —  Brunus  (274)  —  Development  of  his 
Style  (275)  —  Romans  (275)  —  Pilgrimage  Influence  (275) 
—  Influence  of  Beaucaire  (277)  —  The  Third  Master  (278) 
—  Burgundian  Origin  (279)  —  The  St.-Gilles  Master  (280) 
—  The  St.-Gilles  Frieze  compared  with  that  of  Beaucaire 
(280)  —  Influence  of  the  Beaucaire  Tympanum  (282)  —  In¬ 
fluence  of  Byzantine  Ivories  (283)  —  Influence  of  antique 
Sarcophagi  (284)  —  Modena  and  Milan  Pulpits  (284)  — 
Copies  in  France  (284)  —  The  St.-Gilles  Frieze  and  the 
southern  Lintel  of  Chartres  (285)  —  St.-Gilles  is  earlier 
than  Chartres  (288)  —  St.-Gilles  and  the  Lombard-Apulian 
Styles  (289)  —  The  Master  of  the  Bari  Throne  (290)  —  The 
later  Work  at  St.-Gilles  (290)  —  The  Third  Master  recalled 
(291)  —  Date  of  the  earlier  Work  at  St.-Gilles  (292)  —  The 
Caglari  Pulpit  (293)  —  St.-Andre-le-Bas  of  Vienne  (294)  — 
The  Evidence  of  the  Pilgrim’s  Guide  (295)  —  Comparison 
with  Lombard  Monuments  (296)  —  Romans  (298)  —  Date 
of  the  Fagade  of  St.-Trophime  (298)  —  Influences  at  St.- 
Trophime  (298)  —  The  Cloisters  of  St.-Trophime  (299)  — 
The  Frieze  at  Nimes  (300)  —  Aix-en-Provence  (300)  — 
Montmajour  (300)  —  Date  of  the  later  Work  at  St.-Gilles 
(300)  —  Influences  (301)  —  Maguelonne  Tympanum  (302). 

VII.  Angouleme . 

Western  Sculpture  developed  late  (303)  —  Airvault  (303)  — 
Lombard  Influence  (304)  —  Ste.-Radegonde  of  Poitiers 
(304)  —  Angouleme  (304)  —  Orthodox  Dating  (305)  — 
St.-Amand-de-Boixe  (305)  —  Two  Campaigns  of  Construc¬ 
tion  (305)  —  Date  (307)  —  Monogram  of  I  tier  at  Angou¬ 
leme  (307)  —  Proof  of  early  Date  (307)  —  Fontevrault 
(308)  —  St.-Eutrope  of  Saintes  (308)  —  Horizontal  Sec¬ 
tions  of  the  Angouleme  Fagade  (308)  —  The  Lunette  Sculp¬ 
tures  (308)  —  Analogies  with  Lombardy  (309)  —  Influence 
of  Manuscripts  (310)  —  Zamora  (310)  —  Salamanca  (31 1) 
V  — Dates  (312)  —  St.-Aubin  of  Angers  (312)  —  Second 

Zone  at  Angouleme  (313)  — Angels  blowing  Trumpets  (313) 
—  Busts  in  Medallions  (313)  —  Voussure  Sculptures  (314) 


XIV 


CONTENTS 


—  St.-Amand-de-Boixe  again  (314)  —  St.-Jouin-de-Marne 
(315)  —  A  Pilgrimage  Church  (315)  —  Lombard  Influence 
(315)  —  Toulousan  Influence  (316)  —  St. -Michel  (316)  — 
Chadennac  (316)  —  Blazimont  (317)  —  Burgundian  Influ¬ 
ence  (317) — English  Manuscripts  (317) — Varaize  (318)  — 
Moreaux  (318)  —  St.-Vivien  (319)  —  Selles-sur-Cher  (319). 

VIII.  Later  Monuments  of  the  West . 320 

Notre-Dame-la-Grande  of  Poitiers  (320)  —  Comparison  with 
Angouleme  (321)  —  Iconography  (321)  —  Miracle  Play  or 
Pseudo-Augustine  Sermon.?  (322)  —  Dialogue  of  the  Proph¬ 
ets  (322)  —  History  of  the  Motive  of  Prophets  holding 
Scrolls  (324)  —  Scrolls  of  Notre-Dame-la-Grande  and  in 
Lombardy  (325)  —  Relationship  of  Notre-Dame-la-Grande 
and  Guglielmo  (325)  —  La  Lande  de  Fronzac  (328)  — 
Trailing  Sleeves  (328)  —  Proto-Voussure  Sculptures  (328) 

—  Influence  of  Moorish  Ivories  (329)  —  St.-Hilaire-le- 
Grand  of  Poitiers  (329)  —  Anzy-le-Duc  (329)  —  St.-Parize- 
le-Chatel  (329)  —  Continued  Influence  of  Moorish  Ivories 
(329)  —  Extended  to  Italy  (330)  —  Ste.-Marie-des-Dames 
of  Saintes  (330)  —  Aulnay  (331)  —  Lombard  Influence 
(331)  —  Loches  (332)  —  L’lle-Bouchard  (332)  —  Aube- 
terre  (332)  —  Aulnay  Facade  (333)  —  Argenton-Chateau 

(333)  —  St.-Pompain  (333)  —  Notre-Dame-de-la-Couldre 
of  Parthenay  (334)  —  Two  Hands  (334)  —  Conversion  of 
Guillaume  IX  (334)  —  Date  of  the  Parthenay  Sculptures 

(334)  —  Relationship  to  Chadennac  (334)  —  Relation¬ 
ship  to  Moissac  Porch  (335)  —  Relationship  to  Chartres 

(335)  —  Fragments  of  the  Frieze  (336)  —  Iconography 

(336)  —  Foussais  (337)  —  Giraud  Audebert  of  St.-Jean- 
d’Angely  (337)  —  St.-Pons  (337)  —  Analysis  of  Hands  (338) 

—  Date  (339)  —  Cognac  (339)  —  Western  Influence  at 
Chartres  (340)  —  Little  Influence  of  Chartres  in  the  West 
(340)  —  Rochester  (340)  —  Chronology  of  Sculpture  in 
the  West  (341)  —  Civray  (341). 


List  of  Books  Referred  to 

• 

•  343 

Addresses  of  Photographers 

. 

.  357 

Index  . 

& 

•  361 

LIST  OF  DATED  MONUMENTS  ^ 


604. 

670. 

740. 

848. 

848. 

893- 

1002. 

1002-1118. 

1005. 

1006. 

1006. 

1007. 
1007-1026. 

1008. 
1008. 

lOIO. 
1012. 
C.  lOI  2-1020. 

1013. 

1015. 

1016. 

IOI9-IO25. 
I 01 9-1 040. 
1020. 
1020. 
1020. 


Venasque,  Notre-Dame-de-Vic.  Tomb  of  Boethius. 
Bewcastle  cross. 

Hexham  cross,  now  in  Durham  Library. 

Naranco,  Santa  Maria. 

Naranco,  San  Miguel  de  Linio. 

Val  de  Dios,  consecrated. 

Sagra  S.  Michele.  Coro  vecchio,  Foresteria. 

Dij  on.  Rotunda  of  St.-Benigne. 

Piacenza,  S.  Savino.  Campanile, 

Torino,  S.  Solutore.  Church  now  buried. 

Sant  Pere  de  Casserres. 

Beaulieu-les-Loches.  Oldest  portions. 
St.-Martin-de-Canigou. 

Torcello,  Cattedrale.  Nave  and  apse  mosaic. 

Vigolo  Marchese.  S.  Giovanni. 

Maillezais,  Abbaye,  consecrated. 

Sant  Cugat  de  Salon. 

Angers,  St.-Martin.  Carved  plaque  and  core  of  nave. 
Bernay,  Abbaye.  Core  of  nave  piers  and  south  side-aisle 
wall. 

Hildesheim,  Dom.  Bronze  doors  completed  (begun  after 
1107). 

Thiers,  St.-Genes.  Capitals  of  apse,  north  absidiole  and 
eastern  respond  of  southern  side  aisle. 

Aquileia,  Cattedrale.  (Rebuilt  in  1348.) 

Sant  Vinceng  de  Cardona. 

St.-Genis-des-Fontaines.  Lintel  (Ill.  513). 
St.-Michel-de-Cuxa,  campanile. 

Carpignano  near  Otranto,  grotto.  Frescoed  Christ. 


^  In  this  list  are  included  only  monuments,  the  dates  of  which  can  be  determined  by  docu¬ 
mentary  evidence,  and  which  are  of  significance  for  the  chronological  problems  of  the  XI  and 
XII  centuries  discussed  in  the  following  pages.  The  list  makes  no  pretense  of  being  com¬ 
plete;  I  hope,  however,  it  may  supply  a  somewhat  broader  basis  for  study  than  has  hitherto 
been  available.  A  few  desultory  dates  before  1000  and  after  1200  are  included  for  purposes 
of  comparison. 


XVI 


DATED  MONUMENTS 


1022. 

1022. 

1024- 1033. 
1025. 

1025- 1045. 

1028. 

c.  1028-1040. 

1029. 

1030. 

1030. 

1031. 

1032. 
1036-1040. 

1040. 

1040-1063. 

1040-1067. 

1042-1046. 

1042-1069. 

1043. 

1045. 

1046. 

1047. 

1048. 

1049. 

1049. 

1050. 
c.  1055. 


1059. 

1059. 

1059. 

I059-II07. 


1060. 


Piacenza,  S.  Antonino.  Corbel-tables  of  nave  and  transepts. 
Hildesheim,  Dorn.  Bronze  column  (begun  after  1015). 
Rome,  S.  Lorenzo  f.  1.  m.  Stucco  reliefs  in  cloister. 

Chinon,  St.-Mesme.  Relief  of  fagade  (Ill.  897). 

Limburg  a.  d.  Hardt,  Klosterkirche. 

Angers,  Eglise  du  Ronceray,  consecrated.  The  galleries 
date  from  this  period. 

Como,  S.  Carpoforo.  Nave. 

Quimperle,  Ste.-Croix.  Crypt. 

Milan,  S.  Sepolcro. 

Sezze,  S.  Giustina. 

Santa  Eulalia  de  Folia. 

Ripoll,  Santa  Maria,  consecrated. 

Tabernoles,  Sant  Sadurni. 

Sannazaro  Sesia,  begun. 

Jaca,  Catedral.  Oldest  portions. 

Jumieges. 

Neuvy-St.-Sepulcre. 

Elne,  Cathedrale,  in  construction. 

Milan,  S.  Satiro.  Campanile. 

Verona,  S.  Zeno.  Lower  part  of  Campanile. 

Arles-sur-Tech.  Older  portions  consecrated  (Ill.  518). 

St. -Front  of  Perigueux,  consecrated;  finished  in  1077, 
stored  after  a  fire  in  1120. 

Marseille,  Tomb  of  Isarne,  abbot  of  St.-Victor,  now  in 
museum  (Ill.  1278). 

Palencia,  Catedral.  Ivory-box. 

Poitiers,  St.-Hilaire.  Tower  and  transepts  consecrated. 

San  Miguel  de  Escalada.  Exterior  portico  and  east  chapel. 
{i.e.,  between  1049  and  1064)  Regensburg,  St.  Emmeran. 
Statues  of  Christ,  St.  Dionysus  and  St.  Emmeran  (Ill. 
1279-1282). 

Florence,  Baptistry,  consecrated. 

Angers,  St. -Serge.  Transepts  in  part. 

Venosa,  La  Trinita.  Old  basilica  consecrated.  Rebuilt  in 
the  XIV  century. 

La  Charite-sur-Loire.  Lower  portions  of  transepts  and 
absidioles  date  from  the  early  part  of  this  period;  the 
chevet  from  shortly  before  the  consecration. 

Mizzole,  S.  Micheletto. 


DATED  MONUMENTS 


xvii 


1060. 

Sculptures  of  the  Mauritskirche,  Munster,  now  in  West- 
falischen  Landesmuseum. 

Before  1061. 
1062. 
1062. 

Bouzemont. 

Sant  Miguel  de  Cruelles. 

Caen,  Abbaye-aux-Dames,  begun.  The  crypt  and  the 
lower  parts  of  walls  belong  to  church  finished  before 

1063. 

1083. 

Crucifix  of  San  Isidoro  of  Leon,  now  in  Museo  Arqueo- 
logico,  Madrid  (Ill.  654,  655). 

1063. 

Ivory  area  of  S.  Isidoro  of  Leon,  fragments  of  which  survive 
in  box  now  in  Museo  Arqueologico,  Madrid  (Ill.  651- 

653)- 

1063  (begun)-i095  (consecrated).  Venice,  S.  Marco. 
1063.  Pomposa,  Campanile,  begun. 


1063-1118. 

1064. 

Pisa,  Cattedrale. 

Souvigny,  consecrated.  The  remains  of  the  narthex  be¬ 
longed  to  this  church. 

1064. 

1064. 

Sant  Loreng  del  Munt. 

Caen,  Abbaye-aux-Hommes.  Fagade  and  lower  parts  of 
nave  belong  to  church  begun  in  this  year. 

1065. 

1065. 

1066. 
1068-1097. 

1069. 

Amalfi,  Cattedrale.  Bronze  doors. 

Verona,  S.  Fermo  Maggiore.  Romanesque  basilica  begun. 
Monte  Cassino,  bronze  doors. 

Nevers,  St. -Etienne. 

Santa  Maria  de  Mur,  consecrated  (frescos  now  in  Boston 
are  later). 

1069. 
Before  1070. 

1070. 

1 070-  1 103. 

1071- 1 130. 

Port-a-Binson. 

Lesterps.  Vaults  of  nave,  part  of  clocher  and  exterior  walls. 
Rome,  S.  Paolo  f.  1.  m.  Bronze  doors. 

Aix-en-Provence,  Cathedrale  St.-Sauveur,  southern  aisle. 
St.-Benoit-sur-Loire.  Damaged  by  fire  in  1095  (Ill.  1414- 
1422). 

1072. 

1072. 

1073. 
1073. 
1073. 

Zara,  S.  Maria,  consecrated. 

Taranto,  Cattedrale,  begun.  (Nearly  completed  in  1084). 
Ste.-Croix  of  Quimperle,  consecrated. 

Verona,  S.  Trinita.  Southern  absidiole. 

Leon.  Romanesque  cathedral,  of  which  the  foundations 
have  been  excavated. 

1073-1076. 

Santo  Domingo  de  Silos,  cloister  in  construction  (Ill.  666- 

673)- 

xviii  DATED  MONUMENTS 

io75-<r.  1093.  Milan,  S.  Nazaro. 

1076.  St.-Guilhem-le-Desert.  Choir. 

1076.  Monte  S.  Angelo.  Bronze  doors. 


1077. 

1077- 1088. 

1078- 1089. 
1078-1124. 

1080. 
1080. 
1081-1096. 
c.  1083-1093. 
1080-1099. 

Bayeux,  Cathedrale.  Crypt,  core  of  towers  and  narthex. 

St.  Albans.  Norman  portions. 

Canosa.  Episcopal  throne. 

Santiago  de  Compostela,  Catedral. 

Merseburg,  Dom.  Bronze  tomb  of  Rudolf  von  Schwaben. 
Acerenza,  Cattedrale,  begun. 

Saintes,  St.-Eutrope,  crypt. 

Caen,  St.-Nicolas. 

Sahagun.  Virgin  now  in  Museo  Arqueologico  of  Madrid 
(Ill.  770). 

Before  1085. 

Ivory-carving  of  book-cover  from  Jaca,  now  in  Metropolitan 
Museum,  New  York  (Ill.  519). 

1083-1099. 
1083. 
1083. 
c.  1084. 

Poitiers,  Ste.-Radegonde.  Choir  and  west  end  (Ill.  907-91 1). 
Monastero  di  Provaglio.  Fragment  of  apse. 

S.  Benedetto  di  Lenno. 

Canosa,  Throne  (given  by  the  Archbishop  Orso,  1078- 
1089). 

1084. 

1086. 

1087. 
1087-1105. 

Salerno,  Cattedrale,  consecrated. 

Monastir,  in  construction  (older  portions). 

Atrani.  Bronze  doors. 

Bari,  S.  Niccola.  Earlier  portions.  Steps  under  ciborium 
built  between  1105  and  1123  (Ill.  151). 

1087- 1107. 
1088. 

1088- 1119. 

Conques.  Cloister. 

Otranto,  Cattedrale.  Crypt  consecrated. 

Angers,  Eglise  du  Ronceray.  Later  portions  (Ill.  922). 

1088  (begun)~i095  (consecrated).  Cluny.  Vaults  fell  in  1125;  second  con- 


c.  1090. 

secration  in  1131  (Ill.  5-9). 

Poitiers,  St.-Hilaire-le-Grand.  Eastern  piers  of  nave  and 
vaults  (Ill.  913-915)- 

1090. 

1090-1098. 

1092. 

Brindisi.  S.  Benedetto,  founded. 

Leire.  Choir. 

Monteveglio,  S.  Maria.  Fragments  of  crypt  and  northern 
absidiole. 

1093. 

I 093-1 107. 
1093-1 127. 

Empoli,  Collegiata.  Fagade  begun. 

Abbatiale  de  Chaumousey.  Debris  in  museum  of  Epinal. 
Troia,  Cattedrale,  except  upper  part  of  fagade,  choir  and 
transepts  (Ill.  172,  173). 

DATED  MONUMENTS 


XIX 


1093-1133. 

1094. 

1094. 
1095-1130. 

1095. 

1095. 

1095. 

1096. 


1096. 

1096. 

1096. 

1097. 

1098. 
1098. 

1098. 
c.  1099. 

1099. 
I099-I 106. 


C.  1 100. 
1 100. 
1 100. 

1 100. 

1101. 

1101. 
IIOI-II28. 

1102, 
IIO3-III3. 

1 104. 
1104. 

After  1105. 
c.  1106. 

1106. 
106-C.  1165. 

1107. 


Durham,  Cathedral.  Choir  vaulted  1104. 

San  Juan  de  la  Pena,  consecrated. 

Charlieu,  Abbaye,  consecrated  (Ill.  4). 

St.-Jouin-de-Marne  (Ill.  946-950). 

Milan,  Chiesa  d’Aurona.  Fragments,  group  “D”  how  in 
Museo  Archeologico. 

Pontida.  Fragments  of  tomb  of  S.  Alberto. 

Alet,  Cathedrale,  consecrated. 

Poiters,  Montierneuf.  Core  of  church  consecrated.  Begun 
soon  after  1078.  Body  of  the  duke  Guillaume  trans¬ 
lated  into  the  church  in  1087. 

Charroux,  Abbaye,  consecrated. 

Carcassonne,  St.-Nazaire.  Nave  in  construction. 

Huesca,  San  Pedro  el  Viejo,  begun  (Ill.  529-534). 

Verona,  Cattedrale.  S.  Maria  Matricolare. 

Bari,  S.  Niccola.  Throne  (Ill.  1 52-1 55). 

Cruas.  Mosaic  of  apse. 

Trani,  Cattedrale  begun. 

Rivolta  d’Adda. 

S.  Benedetto  di  Portesana. 

Modena,  Cattedrale.  Fagade  sculptures.  Porta  della  Pes- 
cheria  and  crypt,  but  the  two  latter  subsequently 
altered. 

Head  of  King  Oistein,  Bergen  museum. 

Moissac  cloister  (Ill.  262-273). 

Milan,  S.  Sepolcro.  Transept  ends, 

Airvault,  consecrated  (Ill.  898-902). 

Nonantola,  S.  Michele. 

Canosa,  consecrated. 

Angouleme,  Cathedrale  (Ill.  929-940). 

Abbazia  di  Sesto  Calende,  S.  Vincenzo. 

Sessa  Aurunca,  Cattedrale. 

Roffeno-Musiolo. 

Vezelay.  Destroyed  choir  consecrated.  Existing  nave  im¬ 
mediately  begun  (Ill.  28-46). 

Secqueville-en-Bessin. 

Padova,  S.  Sofia.  Parts  of  eastern  half  of  edifice. 

Avallon,  St.-Lazare.  Choir. 

Modena,  Cattedrale,  Nave. 

Lyon,  St.-Martin-d’Ainay,  consecrated. 


XX 


DATED  MONUMENTS 


1107. 

Monopoli,  Cattedrale,  begun.  Sculptured  archivolt  and 
architrave  of  this  building  survive  in  sacristy  (Ill.  158- 
162), 

1107. 

1107. 

1107. 

1107, 

1 107-1 1 18. 

1108. 

1108. 
1108. 
After  1108. 

Portotorres  (Sardinia),  altar  consecrated. 

Ardara  (Sardinia),  S.  Maria  del  Regno.  Altar  consecrated. 
Piacenza,  S.  Savino,  consecrated. 

Winchester,  Cathedral.  Rib  vaults  of  transept. 

Liege,  St.-Barthelemy.  Font. 

Rutigliano,  consecrated  (Ill.  163,  165), 

S.  Clemente  al  Vomano, 

Pieve  Trebbio. 

Nancy,  Eglise  des  Cordeliers.  Tomb  of  Gerard  de  Vaude- 

mont. 

Between  iio8  and  1119.  Airaines. 


c.  mo. 

1 1 10. 

c.  1 1 10. 

1111-1118. 

c.  nil. 

1112. 

1113. 

1 1 14. 

Verona,  S.  Lorenzo. 

Airvault.  Tomb  of  the  abbot  Pierre  (Ill.  903). 

S.  Vitale  delle  Carpinete. 

Canosa.  Mausoleo  di  Boemondo. 

Milan,  S.  Nazaro.  Cupola. 

Milan,  S.  Stefano.  Respond  of  ancient  atrium. 
St.-Parize-le-Chatel.  Crypt  (Ill.  25). 

Baptismal  font  of  Villanueva,  now  in  Museo  Arqueologico, 
Madrid. 

1 1 14. 

1 1 15. 

1115. 

1115-1154- 

1 1 16. 

C.  1 1 16. 

Quarantoli.  Sculptures. 

Perpignan,  St.-Jean-le-Vieux,  consecrated. 

Externstein,  near  Detmold,  Teutoberger  Forest. 

Caduin. 

St.-Desire'.  Destroyed  frescos. 

Codrongianus  (Sardinia),  SS.  Trinita  di  Saccargia  (except 
porch). 

1 1 17. 
c.  1117. 
III7. 

1117-1143- 

S.  Pietro  di  Legnano. 

Parma,  Cattedrale,  Transept  piers  and  crypt, 

Verona,  S.  Trinita.  Narthex. 

Peterborough,  Cathedral.  Choir  and  east  portion  of 

1 1 19. 

I II9. 

1 1 19. 

1119. 

1120. 

transept. 

Troia,  Cattedrale.  Western  bronze  doors. 

Saulieu,  consecrated  (Ill.  52-61). 

Viviers,  Cathedrale,  consecrated. 

Fontevrault,  consecrated  (Ill.  923). 

Volterra,  Cattedrale,  consecrated. 

DATED  MONUMENTS 


XXI 


1120.  Thiers,  St. -Genes. 

1120-1130.  Mainz,  Dom,  vaults. 
c.  I T20-1 132-1 146.  Autun,  Cath^rale  (Ill.  67-81) 


1120. 

1121. 

II2lf. 

Verona,  S.  Zeno.  Campanile  above  podium. 

Nevers,  Notre-Dame. 

Nonantola.  Western  portal,  southern  side-aisle  wall,  west¬ 
ern  bays  of  northern  side  aisle,  piers  of  nave  and  crypt 
vaults. 

1122. 

Marseille,  Cathedrale  Ancienne.  Altar-frontal  (Ill.  1283, 

1122. 

C.  1122. 

II22-II32. 

1284). 

Lucca,  San  Michele  di  Scheto,  consecrated. 

Ganogobie.  Mosaic  pavement. 

Piacenza,  Cattedrale.  Interior  of  choir,  crossing  up  to  tri- 
forium  level,  facade  sculptures. 

c.  1123. 

Padova,  S.  Sofia.  Parts  of  western  half  of  edifice. 

1123.  Verona,  S.  Giovanni  in  Fonte. 

1123.  Sant  Climent  de  Tahull  (frescos  now  in  Barcelona  museum), 
1123.  Santa  Maria  de  Tahull  (frescos,  I  understand,  either  have 
been,  or  are  to  be,  transferred  to  Barcelona  Museum). 


1124. 

1125. 
1125. 
1125. 

Senones,  St. -Pierre,  consecrated. 

Barcelona,  S.  Pablo  al  Campo,  consecrated  (Ill.  550). 
Bellefontaine,  begun. 

St.-Amand-de-Boixe.  Transepts  and  eastern  bay  of  nave 
consecrated  (Ill.  941-945). 

1125-1149. 

Angers,  Cathedrale.  Nave  (except  vaults),  facade,  and  base 
of  towers. 

1127. 
1129. 
1129. 
c.  1 130^1 150. 
ii3c^ii54. 

1131. 
1131-1148. 

1132. 
1132. 
1132. 

Before  1133. 

Troia,  Cattedrale.  Southern  bronze  doors. 

Freckenhorst,  Stiftskirche.  Baptismal  font. 

Milan,  S.  Giorgio  in  Palazzo. 

Parma,  Cattedrale.  Body  of  edifice  up  to  vaulting  capitals. 
Angers,  St.-Aubin.  Tower. 

Auvers,  Absidiole. 

Cefalu,  Cattedrale. 

Santa  Maria  in  Cellis,  near  Carsoli.  Wooden  doors. 

Pavia,  S.  Pietro  in  Ciel  d’Oro,  consecrated. 

Vezelay.  Narthex  consecrated  (Ill.  47-51). 
Moutiers-St.-Jean.  Capitals  now  in  Fogg  Museum,  Cam¬ 
bridge,  Mass.  (Ill.  62-66). 

1133- 

1133- 

Foligno,  Cattedrale.  Romanesque  remains. 

Romans,  begun  (Ill.  1334-1338). 

DATED  MONUMENTS 


xxii 

1133-1145. 

1136. 

1133-1172. 

1137- 

1137- 

1137- 

1137- 

1137- 1140. 
Before  1138. 

1138. 

1138. 

1138- 1150. 

1139- 

1139-f.  1153. 
1 1 40. 
1 140. 
1140. 

1140. 

1141. 
1 141. 

1143- 

1143- 

1144. 

1144. 

1145. 

1145. 
c.  1145. 
1145. 

1147. 

1147- 

1148. 
1148. 

1148. 

1149. 
1149-1153. 

1150. 


Brindisi,  Cattedrale.  Romanesque  remains. 
Chalons-sur-Marne,  St.-Alpin.  Core  of  nave. 

Hildesheim,  St.  Godehard. 

Baptismal  font  from  Santa  Maria  del  Patiro,  Calabria,  now 
in  Metropolitan  Museum,  New  York. 

Verona,  S.  Fermo  Maggiore.  Romanesque  basilica  conse¬ 
crated. 

Gerona,  San  Pedro  de  Galligans,  in  construction. 

St. -Michel  (Ill.  1006). 

St.-Denis.  Fagade  (Ill.  1437-1457). 

Liege,  Musee  Archeologique,  Vierge  de  Dom  Rupert. 
Verona,  S.  Zeno.  Fagade,  sculptures  and  bronze  doors. 
St.-Guilhem-le-Desert.  Altar  (Ill.  1300). 

Knechtsteden,  Abteikirche. 

Milan,  Chiesa  Rossa. 

Verona,  Cattedrale.  Portals. 

Chadennac  (  Ill.  1034-1040). 

Verona,  S.  Elena. 

Moreaux  (Ill.  1065-1068). 

Palermo,  Cappella  Palatina,  consecrated. 

Castelritaldi,  Pieve.  Portal. 

Fontgombrault,  consecrated. 

Porcile,  Madonna  della  Stra. 

St.-Avit  Senieur.  Altar  consecrated. 

St.-Denis.  Choir  consecrated. 

St.-Vivien  (Ill.  1085,  1086). 

Buste  reliquaire  of  St.  Alexandre,  in  Musee  d’Antiquites, 
Brussels. 

Selles-sur-Cher  (Ill.  1074-1082). 

Montechiarugolo,  S.  Felicolo. 

St.-Pierre-sur-Dives.  Southern  tower,  lower  portions  of 
piers  and  side-aisle  walls,  walls  of  ambulatory. 

Lucca,  S.  Frediano,  consecrated. 

Bonarcado  (Sardinia),  consecrated. 

Reggio  Emilia,  S.  Prospero.  Mosaics. 

Vercelli,  S.  Maria  Maggiore. 

Villanova.  Campanile,  lower  part. 

Font  of  Tirlemont,  Brussels  Museum. 

Angers,  Cathedrale.  Vaults  of  nave. 

San  Juan  de  las  Abadessas,  consecrated. 


DATED  MONUMENTS 


c.  1150. 

1 1 50. 
c.  1150. 

1151. 
II5I. 

1151. 

II5I-II74. 

1152. 
1152. 

1152. 

1152. 

1153- 

1153- 

1153- 

1153- 

1154. 

1154. 

1156. 

1157. 
1157. 

1157- 1183. 

1157. 

1158, 

1158. 

1158- 1162. 
After  1158. 

1159. 
After  1159. 

1159- 1174. 

1160. 
1160. 

1160. 
c.  1160. 

1161. 

1162. 


xxiii 

Milan,  S.  Simpliciano.  Romanesque  fragments  in  apse, 
cupola  and  transepts. 

Rosciolo,  S.  Maria  in  Valle  Porclaneta.  Ambo  and  ciborio. 
Bleurville,  St.-Bertier.  Crypt. 

S.  Benedetto  Po.  Mosaic  of  Oratorio  di  S.  Martino. 
Serrabone  (Boule-d’Amont),  Collegiale.  Portions,  including 
vaults  of  crypt. 

Le  Mans,  Museum.  Tomb  in  enamel  of  Geoffroi  Plantag- 
enet. 

Zamora,  Catedral  (Ill.  740,  741). 

Arles,  St.-Trophime.  Fagade  (Ill.  1366-1377). 

Magdeburg,  Dom.  Bronze  tomb  of  Erzbischof  Friedrich 
von  Wettin. 

Romena,  Pieve,  in  construction. 

Vienne,  St.-Andre-le-Bas  (Ill.  1218,  1219). 

Melfi,  Campanile. 

Caserta  Vecchia,  Cattedrale,  finished. 

Barletta,  Cattedrale,  in  construction. 

Pisa,  Baptistry,  begun. 

Santhia.  Crypt. 

Vicenza,  Ss.  Felice  e  Fortunato.  Upper  part  of  apse. 
Najera.  To.mb  of  Dona  Blanca  (Ill.  719). 

Noyon,  Cathedrale.  Choir  finished. 

Arles-sur-Tech.  Vaults,  etc. 

Chalons-sur-Marne,  Notre-Dame.  Second  period  of  con¬ 
struction  including  portal. 

Pavia,  S.  Lazaro. 

Moscufo,  S.  Maria  del  Lago.  Pulpit. 

Le  Mans,  Cathedrale.  Nave  consecrated. 

Cagliari  (Sardinia),  Cattedrale.  Pulpits  (Ill.  186-188). 
Pianella  (Ill.  217,  218). 

Teramo,  S.  Anna  dei  Pompetti. 

Bayeux,  Cathedrale.  Piers  of  nave. 

Conversano,  except  side-aisle  walls  (Ill.  179). 

Vicenza,  Ss.  Felice  e  Fortunato.  Campanile. 

Cattaro,  Cattedrale,  consecrated. 

Otranto,  Cattedrale,  pavement. 

Laon,  Chapel  of  Episcopal  Palace. 

Palermo,  S.  Cataldo. 

Peterhausen,  Klosterkirche,  begun. 


XXIV 


DATED  MONUMENTS 


1162. 

1162. 
1162-1182. 

1163. 

1163. 

1163. 

1164. 
1164. 
1164. 

1164. 

1165. 
1165. 

1165. 

1166. 
1166. 
1166. 

1166. 

1166-1189. 

1166- 1199. 

1167. 
1167. 

1167- 1184. 
c.  1168. 

1169. 

1169. 

1170. 

1171. 
II7I. 

II7I. 

II7I. 

II7I. 

II7I-II72. 

JI73- 


Pistoia,  S.  Giovanni  Fuorcivitas.  Portal  (Ill.  199). 

Parma,  Cattedrale.  Vaults. 

Reims,  St.-Remi.  Reconstruction  including  sculptures  of 
consoles. 

Paris,  St.-Germain-des-Pres,  consecrated.  Western  portal 
dated  from  this  period. 

Assisi,  S.  Maria  Maggiore.  Rose-window. 

Paris,  Cathedrale,  begun.  Consecration  in  1182. 

Verona,  S.  Giovanni  in  Valle. 

Vercelli,  S.  Bernardo. 

Jazeneuil.  Choir  finished. 

Sens,  Cathedrale,  consecrated.  At  this  time  finished  up  to 
three  western  bays  of  nave. 

Louvain,  St.-Michel. 

St.-Guilhem-le-Desert.  Narthex. 

Monterappoli,  portal. 

Pistoia,  S.  Andrea.  Portal  (Ill.  191-193). 

Braunschweig,  Lion  of  Herzog  Heinrich. 

Cugnoli.  Ambo. 

Rocamadour,  Crypte  St.-Amadour  and  Basilique  St.- 
Sauveur. 

Monreale,  Duomo. 

Poitiers,  Cathedrale.  Choir. 

Villanova. 

Pistoia,  S.  Bartolommeo  in  Pantano.  Portal. 

Modena,  Cattedrale.  Campanile  (subsequently  altered). 
Mozac.  Chasse  de  Saint  Calmin. 

Perigueux,  St.-Etienne.  Tomb  of  the  bishop  Jean. 

Troia,  Cattedrale.  Pulpit. 

St.-Amant-de-Boixe.  Nave,  except  eastern  bay  and  lantern 
finished  (Ill.  1135)- 
S.  Maria  di  Ronzano. 

Milan,  S.  Simpliciano.  Western  portal  and  responds  of 
narthex. 

Piacenza,  S.  Antonino.  Northern  portal  and  sculptures. 
St.-Pons-de-Thomieres.  Later  capitals  of  cloister  (Ill.  1265- 
1274). 

Milan,  Porta  Romana. 

S.  Lorenzo  de  Carboeiro. 

Pisa,  Campanile,  begun. 


DATED  MONUMENTS 


XXV 


1173- 1195.  Braunschweig,  Stiftskirche. 

1174.  Amalfi,  Cattedrale.  Fragments  of  church-furniture. 

1174- 1201,  Abbaye  de  la  Couronne. 

1175.  Salerno,  Cattedrale.  Church-furniture,  except  earlier  frag¬ 

ments  in  choir-rail. 

c.  1175.  Autun,  Tomb  of  St.  Lazare  (Ill,  147-149). 

1176.  Viboldone.  Choir. 

1176-before  1182.  S.  Clemente  a  Casauria.  Fagade  and  porch  (Ill.  219, 
220). 

1177.  Monte  S.  Angelo,  S.  Maria  di  Pulsano,  consecrated. 

1178.  Louvain,  St.-Pierre. 

1178.  Autun,  Cathedrale.  Narthex. 

1178.  Bari,  Cattedrale,  in  construction. 

1178.  Parma,  Cattedrale.  Relief  of  Deposition. 

1178.  Verona,  S.  Zeno.  Upper  belfry  of  campanile. 

1179.  Foggia,  Cattedrale,  begun. 

1179.  Ravello,  Cattedrale.  Bronze  doors. 

1179.  Piacenza,  S.  Antonino.  Central  tower. 

1179.  Vicenza,  Ss.  Felice  e  Fortunate.  Upper  part  of  apse. 

1179.  S.  Maria  di  Ronzano.  Frescos. 

1180.  Rivalta  Scrivia,  begun. 

1180.  Lecce,  Ss.  Nicola  e  Cataldo. 

c.  1180.  Candes,  St.-Martin. 

1180.  Bominaco,  Ambo. 

c.  1 1 8 1 ,  Lisieux,  Cathedrale.  Nave,  transepts  and  choir,  lower  parts. 

1182.  Tomb  of  Guy,  abbot  of  Chaumousey,  museum  of  Epinah 

1183.  Santa  Eugenia  de  Brega. 

1183.  Sahagun  consecrated.  Capital  at  San  Marcos  of  Leon  (Ill. 

768),  belonged  to  this  edifice. 

1184.  Trani,  S.  Francesco. 

1185.  Clermont-Ferrand,  Notre-Dame-du-Port  in  construction. 

1185.  Palermo,  Cattedrale,  consecrated. 

1185.  Monteveglio,  S,  Maria, 

f.  1 1 85-1 1 87-1 193.  Verona,  Cattedrale.  Cloisters,  apse,  etc. 

1186.  Milan,  Cattedrale.  Reliefs  of  eight  apostles. 

1186.  Monreale,  Duomo.  Western  bronze  doors. 

1186.  Morimondo,  begun. 

1187.  Varese,  S.  Giovanni. 

1187.  Nazareth,  Church  of  the  Annunciation.  Capitals  in  Mu¬ 


seum. 


XXVI 


DATED  MONUMENTS 


ii88. 

1188. 
1189-1197. 

1189. 
Before  1190. 

1190. 

1 191. 

1193- 

1194. 

1194. 

1195. 

1195. 

1196. 

1197. 

1197. 

1197. 


1198. 

1200. 

1200. 

1202. 

1202, 

1204. 

1205. 

1206. 

1208, 

1209. 
1211. 

1211. 

1212. 
1214. 

1216. 

1216. 

1216. 

1217-1254. 


Santiago  de  Compostela,  Catedral.  Portico  de  la  Gloria 
(Ill.  820-840). 

Ranverso,  S.  Antonio. 

S.  Maria  di  Perno. 

Vezzolano,  completed. 

Armen tia,  San  Andres  (Ill.  761-767). 

San  Cugat  del  Valles,  in  construction. 

Senlis,  Cathedrale,  consecrated  (Ill.  1505-1513). 

Wurzburg,  Dom.  Tomb  of  Konrad  von  Spitzenberg. 
Groppoli.  Pulpit  (Ill.  229,  230). 

Verona,  Ss.  Apostoli.  Apse. 

Bevagna,  S.  Silvestro.  Portal. 

Gerona,  S.  Feliu.  Tomb  (Ill.  617). 

Ofena. 

Grotto  S.  Biagio,  near  S.  Vito  de’  Normanni,  Brindisi. 

Frescos  of  ceiling. 

Bisceglie,  S.  Margherita. 

Tarascon,  Ste.-Marthe,  consecrated.  Begun  1187.  Existing 
church  in  part  and  portal  dates  from  this  period  (Ill. 
1404a,  1404b). 

Monte  S.  Angelo,  S.  Maria  Maggiore,  begun  (Ill.  231). 
Valcabrere.  Ancient  parts  of  church  and  portal  (Ill.  498- 
502). 

Bitonto,  Cattedrale.  Portal  (Ill.  232,  233). 

Chaalis,  in  construction. 

Le  Thor,  Notre-Dame. 

S.  Tommaso,  near  Caramanico. 

Laon,  Cathedrale.  East  end  in  construction. 

Toscanella,  S.  Maria  Maggiore,  consecrated. 

Troyes,  Cathedrale.  Apse  begun. 

Rapolla,  Cattedrale.  Reliefs  of  campanile. 

Reims,  Cathedrale,  begun. 

Toulouse,  St.-Etienne.  Vaults  of  nave  in  construction. 
Soissons,  Cathedrale.  Choir  finished. 

Tarragona,  Cattedrale.  Cloister  in  construction  (Ill.  607- 
610). 

Benevento,  Cattedrale.  Fagade  in  construction. 

Auxerre,  St.-Eusebe.  Vaults. 

Braine,  consecrated. 

Le  Mans,  Cathedrale.  Choir. 


DATED  MONUMENTS 


XXVll 


1220. 

1 220-1 23 1. 
1224. 

1221. 

1225-1230. 

1226. 

1227. 
1229. 

1233- 

Amiens,  Cathedrale,  begun. 

Altamura,  Cattedrale. 

Narbonne,  St.-Paul.  Vaults. 

Burgos,  Catedral,  begun. 

S.  Giovanni  in  Venere.  Western  Portal. 

Laon,  Cathedrale.  North  portal  in  fagade  tower. 

Longpont  (Aisne),  consecrated. 

Bitonto,  Cattedrale.  Ambo  (Ill.  244,  245). 

Milan,  Palazzo  della  Ragione.  Equestrian  statue  of  Oldrado 
da  Tresseno. 

1234- 

1237. 

1238. 
1238. 

1238. 

1239. 

1240. 
1240. 
1247. 
1247. 

1253- 

Auxerre,  Cathedrale.  Choir  finished. 

Bamberg,  Dom,  consecrated. 

Cellole,  Cattedrale,  completed. 

Bazzano,  S.  Giusta. 

Provins,  St.-Quiriace.  Transept  in  construction. 
Cambronne.  South  side  aisle  and  chevet. 

Prata  Ausidonia.  Ambo. 

Trau,  Duomo.  Portal. 

Paris,  Sainte  Chapelle,  finished. 

Beauvais,  Cathedrale,  begun. 

Sculptures  from  choir-screen  of  Wessobrunn  now  in  the 
Munich  museum. 

Between  1255  and  1266.  Carcassonne,  St.-Nazaire.  Chapel  of  Bishop 
Randulphe. 


1259. 
1262. 
1265. 
After  1266. 
1267. 

1269. 

1270. 
1272. 
1278. 
1283. 
1295. 

After  1316. 

Brioude,  St.-Julien.  Vaults. 

Troyes,  St.-Urbain,  begun. 

Narbonne,  St.-Paul.  Choir  finished. 

Carcassonne,  St.-Nazaire.  Tomb  of  Bishop  Randulphe. 
Curcumello.  Ambo. 

Carcassonne,  St.-Nazaire.  Nave  and  transepts  begun. 
Matera,  Cattedrale,  finished. 

Narbonne,  Cathedrale,  begun. 

Rouen,  Cathedrale.  Portail  de  la  Librairie  begun. 
Giovinazzo,  Cattedrale,  consecrated. 

Bisceglie,  Cattedrale,  consecrated. 

Altamura,  Cattedrale.  Portal. 

PART  1 


CLUNY 


ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE  OE  THE 
PILGRIMAGE  ROADS 


CLUNY 

I 

THE  CHRONOLOGICAL  PROBLEM 

My  own  conception  of  Romanesque  chronology  was  originally  that 
V.  hich  critical  opinion  in  general  still  follows.  This  system  of  dating 
I  found  to  be  accepted,  and  there  appeared  to  be  no  reason  to  ques¬ 
tion  its  accuracy. 

In  studying  the  Romanesque  art  of  Lombardy,  I  found  a  great 
number  of  documents  which  established  for  this  region,  at  the  end  of 
the  XI  and  early  XII  century,  a  chronology  notably  earlier  than  that 
admitted  for  the  rest  of  Europe.  The  fact  seemed  singular,  but  I 
explained  it  on  the  ground  that  Lombardy  at  this  period  was  in 
advance  of  the  North. 

Returning  to  the  study  of  French  art,  and  re-reading  the  literature, 
I  was  struck  by  the  number  of  monuments,  the  style  of  which  is  said 
not  to  correspond  with  the  documentary  evidence  for  date.  The 
phrase  that  suchandsuch  a  monument  must  be  later  than  the  literary 
sources  would  lead  us  to  believe,  is  repeated  so  frequently  that  it 
becomes  a  stereotyped  formula.  We  are  told  that  Ste.-Croix  of 
Quimperle  is  really  not  of  1083,  but  of  the  XII  century;  that  the 
apse  of  St.-Guilhem-le-Desert  is  not  of  1076,  but  of  the  XII  century. 
The  crypt  of  St.-Eutrope  of  Saintes  is  given  to  the  XII  century  in 
spite  of  the  clearest  and  most  circumstantial  evidence  that  it  was 
consecrated  in  1096 ;  the  vaults  of  the  tower  of  St.-Hilaire  of  Poitiers 
are  believed  to  be  not  of  the  end  of  the  XI  century,  but  of  the  XII 


4  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

century;  Bellefontaine  is  considered  to  date  not  from  1125,  but  from 
later;  the  capitals  of  Cluny  (Ill,  5-10)  are  ascribed  not  to  1088-1095 
as  the  documents  indicate,  but  to  the  XII  century ;  those  of  Autun 
(Ill.  67-79)  3.re  assigned  not  to  c.  ii  20-1 132  as  documented,  but  to 
1150-1160;  the  obviously  contemporary  ones  of  Vezelay  (Ill.  28-46), 
a  church  the  narthex  of  which  was  consecrated  in  1132,  are  similarly 
ascribed  to  some  twenty  years  later;  the  fagade  of  Angouleme 
(Ill.  929-940)  is  called  not  of  1128,  but  of  the  second  half  of  the  XII 
century ;  the  inner  tympanum  of  Charlieu  (a  church  consecrated  in 
1094),  clearly  much  earlier  than  the  porch  of  c.  1140,  is  called  not 
of  1094,  ^ut  of  the  XII  century  (Ill.  4) ;  the  transepts  of  St.-Amand- 
de-Boixe  (Ill.  941-945)  are  ascribed  not  to  1125  but  to  1170;  Chad- 
ennac  (Ill.  1034-1040)  is  called  not  of  1140,  but  of  1170;  Font- 
evrault  not  of  1119  but  of  the  second  quarter  of  the  XII  century; 
the  Bayeux  embroidery  not  of  from  shortly  after  1066  but  of  the 
XII  century;^  the  tympanum  of  Moissac  (Ill.  339-342)  documented 
as  before  1115  has  been  ascribed  to  1130.  From  France  this  same 
system  of  setting  aside  documents  has  been  extended  to  other  lands  : 
the  tomb  of  S.  Alberto  at  Pontida,  dated  1095,  has  been  assigned 
to  after  1214;  the  facade  sculptures  of  Modena  dated  1099-1106  by 
a  contemporary  chronicle  and  an  inscription,  are  said  really  to  have 
been  executed  after  1140;  the  Porta  della  Pescheria  at  Modena,  also 
dated  1099-1106,  is  ascribed  to  the  end  of  the  XII  century;  the 
northern  portal  of  Borgo  S.  Donnino,  dated  1106,  is  also  assigned  to 
the  XIII  century;  the  reliefs  of  Cremona  dated  1107-1117  are  called 
“  un  peu  anterieurs  au  milieu  du  XIP  siecle  ”  ;  the  Ferrara  portal, 
dated  1135  by  an  inscription,  is  said  nevertheless  to  be  “  guere  avant 
1150”;  the  portal  of  the  cathedral  of  Verona,  dated  1139,  is,  not¬ 
withstanding,  assigned  to  the  middle  of  the  century;  the  sculptures 
of  the  baptistry  of  Parma,  begun  in  1196  according  to  a  contempo¬ 
rary  inscription,  still  “  ne  sauraient  etre  anterieures  a  1220”;  the 
cloister  of  S.  Orso  of  Aosta,  dated  1 133  by  an  inscription,  must  really 

^  Mr.  Roger  Loomis  has  definitively  proved  that  the  Bayeux  embroidery  dates  from  soon 
after  1066. 


THE  CHRONOLOGICAL  PROBLEM 


5 


be  some  years  later;  the  cloister  sculptures  of  Santo  Domingo  de 
Silos  are  considered  not  of  1073-1076  as  documented,  but  of  c.  1130. 

There  are  two  stock  explanations  for  the  existence  of  these  sup¬ 
posedly  misleading  documents.  The  first,  and  most  used,  assumes 
that  the  construction  of  Romanesque  buildings  proceeded  very 
slowly,  and  with  many  delays ;  that  the  actual  building  might  take 
place  years  after  the  date  given  in  the  documents  for  the  beginning 
of  the  construction,  or  the  consecration  ^  of  the  church  or  even  its 
completion. 

This  theory  possibly  holds  true  of  certain  Gothic  monuments,  but  I 
know  of  no  good  reason  for  extending  its  application  as  a  general  rule 
to  the  Romanesque  age.  The  step  from  saying  that  the  construction 
might  have  taken  place  years  after,  to  saying  that  it  must  have  taken 
place  years  after,  was  a  short  one.  What  had  been  found  to  be  pos¬ 
sibly  true  of  certain  Gothic  monuments,  came  to  be  considered  neces¬ 
sarily  true  of  all  Romanesque  monuments. 

The  second  explanation  for  the  existence  of  these  misleading  docu¬ 
ments  is  to  suppose  that  in  each  case  the  building  in  question  was 
subsequently  reconstructed.  In  any  one  instance  this  hypothesis 
might  carry  conviction,  although  it  is  always  intrinsically  improb¬ 
able  that  a  second  rebuilding  should  have  taken  place  so  soon  after 
the  first ;  but  in  such  a  number  of  instances  it  becomes  untenable.  It 
was  certainly  not  the  custom  in  the  Middle  Ages  to  pull  down  a 
new  church  as  soon  as  it  was  finished. 

It  would  seem  that  the  setting  aside  of  so  many  documents  could 
be  justified  only  if  the  style  of  the  monuments  in  question  had  been 
found  to  be  inconsistent  with  that  of  other  and  more  numerous  monu¬ 
ments  of  better  authenticated  date.  But  I  found  that  such  was  far 
from  being  the  case.  Indeed,  the  penury  of  dated  monuments  of 
this  period  in  France  is  a  commonplace. 

^  In  the  XII  century,  the  consecration  normally  took  place  either  when  the  entire  church,  or 
some  considerable  portion,  such  as  the  choir,  had  been  completed.  Often  a  first  consecration 
marked  the  completion  of  the  choir,  a  second  the  completion  of  the  entire  church.  Very  ex¬ 
ceptionally,  for  special  reasons,  the  consecration  was  hastened  or  postponed.  But  to  argue 
from  such  exceptional  cases  —  I  do  not  know  of  a  single  one  in  the  XII  century  which  can  be 
proved  —  that  all  consecration  dates  are  misleading,  is  illogical  and  unwarranted. 


6  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

This  penury,  it  is  true,  exists  especially  in  the  Ile-de-France.  In 
the  neighbouring  regions  a  few  monuments  of  accepted  date  can  be 
found.  These  are : 

1077.  Bayeux  cathedral,  crypt. 

c.  1083-1093.  Caen,  St.-Nicolas. 

1083-1099.  Poitiers,  Ste.-Radegonde.  Choir  and  west  end. 

1088-1119.  Angers,  Eglise  du  Ronceray. 

1095-1130.  St.-Jouin-de-Marne. 

1096.  Poitiers,  Montierneuf,  consecrated. 

1096.  Charroux,  consecrated. 

1097.  St.-Etienne  of  Nevers,  consecrated. 

1 100.  Airvault,  consecrated. 

1107.  Lyon,  St.-Martin  d’Ainay,  consecrated. 

I  confess  that  the  more  I  studied  this  list,  and  compared  it  with  the 
list  of  rejected  dates,  the  greater  became  my  perplexity.  Not  only 
was  the  list  of  accepted  dates  singularly  meager  in  comparison  with 
those  that  were  rejected,  so  that,  supposing  the  two  to  be  incompat¬ 
ible  it  was  difficult  to  see  why  the  former  should  have  been  preferred ; 
but  the  fact  of  incompatibility  between  the  two  seemed  to  me  far 
from  obvious.  Why,  for  example,  if  the  choir  of  Montierneuf  at 
Poitiers  is  admitted  as  of  1096,  should  the  crypt  of  St.-Eutrope  of 
Saintes  be  considered  later  ?  Furthermore,  I  remarked  that  the 
monuments,  the  dates  of  which  were  admitted,  lay  without  excep¬ 
tion  either  in  Normandy,  in  Poitou  or  in  Auvergne  —  that  is  to  say 
in  provinces  which  might  a  priori  be  expected  to  be  retardataire.  It 
seemed  to  me  very  significant  that  in  cultured  Burgundy,  notwith¬ 
standing  the  great  profusion  of  documents,  there  was  not  a  single 
monument  of  accepted  date. 

In  fact,  the  more  I  studied  the  literature,  the  more  evident  it  be¬ 
came  to  me  that,  as  a  rule,  in  determining  the  age  of  any  given  work, 
less  weight  had  been  attached  to  comparison  with  dated  monuments 
or  to  documents  than  to  archaeological  theory.  The  date  assigned 
was  really  fixed  according  to  a  pre-conception  of  the  development  of 
style,  which  enabled  the  scholar  to  judge  on  internal  evidence  the  age 


THE  CHRONOLOGICAL  PROBLEM 


7 


of  any  monument.  It  is  in  reliance  upon  this  archaeological  system 
that  scholars  have  disregarded  a  large  proportion  of  the  documentary 
evidence  for  French  buildings. 

In  fact,  the  unquestioning  confidence  placed  in  this  chronological 
theory,  not  only  by  scholars  of  France,  but  by  those  of  the  world, 
is  evident  on  almost  every  page  of  archaeological  writing.  The 
premise  is  universally  accepted  as  a  firm  basis  from  which  to  draw 
conclusions,  although  its  truth  seems  never  to  have  been  really 
tested. 

Yet  my  own  faith,  I  confess,  was  further  shaken  by  observing  cer¬ 
tain  proven  errors  into  which  this  theory  had  led  some  even  of  its 
most  eminent  exponents.  Thus  in  the  same  work,  M.  Andre  Michel’s 
Histoire  de  V Art^  on  one  page  M.  Enlart  states  that  the  reliefs  of 
S.  Isidoro  of  Leon  are  of  the  XI  century,^  while  on  another,^  M.. 
Bertaux  dates  the  same  reliefs  to  1147.  Therefore  an  archaeological 
theory  which  is  preferred  to  authentic  documents,  must  nevertheless 
have  led  one  or  the  other  of  these  distinguished  scholars  into  a  chron¬ 
ological  error  of  a  century. 

Nor  does  this  instance  stand  alone.  Comte  de  Lasteyrie,  relying 
on  the  theory,  held  that  St.-Front  of  Perigueux  was  reconstructed 
after  the  fire  of  1120;  but  from  the  researches  of  Chanoine  Roux  it 
now  seems  probable  that  the  church  consecrated  in  1047  still  stands. 
The  vaulted  basilicas  of  Lombardy  were  thought  to  be  of  the  XIII 
century ;  but  it  is  now  admitted  that  they  are  of  the  XI  century.  It 
was  considered  axiomatic  that  no  basilicas  were  vaulted  in  Europe 
before  the  XI  century;  but  numerous  examples  some  two  centuries 
earlier  have  been  found  in  Spain.  The  crosses  of  Hexham  and  Bew- 
castle  were  pronounced  works  of  the  XII  century ;  ^  whereas  it  tran¬ 
spires  that  they  are  authentically  dated  by  inscriptions  740  and  670 
respectively.^  Zimmermann  assigned  the  apostles  of  Milan  cathedral 
to  the  end  of  the  XIII  or  beginning  of  the  XIV  century^  —  “  das 

1 1,  2,  564.  ^  II,  I,  250. 

3  Enlart  in  Michel’s  Histoire  de  I’ Art,  I,  2,  520-521. 

^Enlart  in  Michel’s  Histoire  de  1' Art,  II,  i,  199-200. 

5  197. 


8  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

Werk  kann  fruhestens  aus  dem  Ende  des  13.  oder  gar  erst  Anfang 
des  14.  Jahrhunderts  stammen  ”  — ;  but  Gall  has  shown  that  they 
were  executed  in  1186.  M.  Bertaux  assigned  the  pulpit  at  Canosa  to 
the  end  of  the  XI  century  ^  —  “fin  du  XP  siecle  ”  — ;  but  the  ink  was 
hardly  dry  on  his  pages,  when  Wackernagel  ^  discovered  an  inscrip¬ 
tion  proving  that  the  pulpit  is  anterior  to  1041.  Comte  de  Lasteyrie 
assigned  the  frieze  of  St.-Gilles  to  the  end  of  the  XII  century ;  but  it 
is  certain  that  it  is  contemporary  with  the  great  statues,  and  exe¬ 
cuted  about  1140.  Comte  de  Lasteyrie  assigned  the  fagade  of  St.- 
Trophime  of  Arles  to  1180;  it  was,  however,  erected  in  1152.  The 
sculptures  of  Conques  have  been  ascribed  to  the  second  half  or  end 
of  the  XII  century ;  but  they  were  executed  by  sculptors  who  worked 
at  Santiago  before  1124.  The  Cagliari  pulpit  has,  by  the  greatest 
Italian  critic,  not  only  been  dated  1260,  but  judged  a  work  by  the 
hand  of  Fra  Guglielmo,  the  well-known  assistant  of  Niccola  Pisano ; 
however,  the  investigations  of  Scanno  have  proved  that  it  is  a  cen¬ 
tury  older,  and  more  precisely  that  it  was  begun  in  1158  and  finished 
in  1162.  The  tomb  of  Widukind  at  Enger  near  Herford  has  been 
assigned  to  the  middle  of  the  XII  century ;  but  the  investigation  of 
Creutz  ^  leaves  no  doubt  that  it  is  on  the  contrary  of  the  early  years 
of  the  XII  century.  The  cathedral  of  Conversano  in  Apulia  (Ill.  179) 
was  believed  to  be  a  surely  dated  monument  of  1369-1373 ;  but  it 
now  appears  that  the  inscription  was  misread,  and  that  the  church 
really  dates  from  1159-1174.  Nor  can  I  claim  to  have  been  myself 
less  mislead  than  others.  Relying  on  theory  I  assigned  to  the  XII 
century  the  S.  Ambrogio  altar,  which,  however,  I  now  see,  is  as  the 
inscription  indicates,  essentially  of  the  IX  century. 

Such  chronological  errors,  showing  in  every  case  underdating  on 
the  part  of  the  archaeologists  who  had  followed  orthodox  theory,  led 
me  to  suspect  that  that  theory,  far  from  being  an  infallible  guide, 
might  be  founded  on  the  supposition  that  the  mediaeval  styles  de¬ 
veloped  later  and  more  consistently  than  was  actually  the  case.  This 
suspicion  deepened  when  I  noted  that  archaeological  writers,  even 

I445.  Uf.  ^56. 


THE  CHRONOLOGICAL  PROBLEM 


9 


when  forced  by  the  strength  of  the  evidence  to  accept  the  documented 
date  for  works  of  the  late  XI  or  early  XII  century,  do  so  in  many 
cases  with  the  utmost  reluctance,  and  are  obviously  troubled  by  a 
discrepancy  between  the  style  displayed  by  the  given  object,  and 
that  which  archaeological  theory  had  led  them  to  expect  at  the  date 
in  question.  Thus  M.  Bertaux  studies  the  throne  at  Bari  (Ill.  152- 
155)  which  is  dated  1098,  and  marvels  over  its  advanced  style :  “  Si 
I’oeuvre  n’etait  pas  datee  de  maniere  irrecusable  par  I’inscription  et 
par  une  chronique  contemporaine,  on  la  croirait  posterieure  d’un 
siecle  al’archeveque  Helie.”  ^  M.  Louis  Serbat  writes  of  St.-Etienne 
of  Nevers,  which  he  accepts  as  of  the  documented  dates,  but  adds : 
“Quand  on  veut  tenir  compte  a  la  fois  et  destextes  et  des  faits,  Tetude 
de  St.-Etienne  de  Nevers  ne  va-t-elle  pas  sans  etre  quelque  peu  de- 
concertante.”  ^  Yet  St.-Etienne  of  Nevers,  when  compared  with  the 
closely  related  and  contemporary  cathedral  of  Santiago,  is  seen  to 
be  singularly  retardataire.  A  great  German  scholar,  after  having 
assigned  to  1118  the  pulpit  of  Canosa,  now  known  to  be  some  eighty 
years  earlier,  studies  the  pulpit  of  S.  Basilio  at  Troia,  dated  1158  by 
an  inscription.  He  is  amazed  at  the  advanced  style:  “Hatte  man 
diese  Inschrift  nicht,  so  konnte  man  versucht  sein,  die  Kanzel  in’s 
XIII  Jahrh.  herab  zu  riicken.”  ^  M.  Andre  Michel  illustrates  and 
describes  the  Externstein  of  the  Teutoburger  Forest,  dated,  as  he 
remarks,  1115.  But  he  goes  on  to  observe:  “C’est  bien  plus  avant 
dans  le  XIP  siecle  qu’on  serait  tente  de  placer  un  morceau  de  cette 
envergure.” 

In  the  light  of  these  facts,  I  became  conscious  of  an  inconsistency 
running  through  the  mediaeval  archaeology  of  the  Romanesque 
period;  on  the  one  side  are  the  documents,  consistently  (for  the  ac¬ 
cepted  dates  are  by  no  means  irreconcilable  with  the  rejected)  in¬ 
dicating  an  earlier  date,  on  the  other  the  theory  setting  all  these 
dates  some  years  later.  The  consistency  of  the  documents  between 

I446. 

Co«|-.  1913,  352. 

^  In  order  to  explain  the  marvel,  he  supposes  the  pulpit  to  have  been  executed  in  Sicily. 

*  Histoire  de  1' Art,  II,  2,  74 1. 


lo  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

themselves,  and  their  inconsistency  with  the  theory,  seem  to  have 
passed  unobserved. 

In  view  of  the  grave  indictment  of  the  archaeological  theory  by  the 
documents,  it  becomes  incumbent  to  study  upon  what  evidence  this 
theory  is  based,  and  to  trace  the  steps  by  which  it  has  taken  form. 

The  science  of  mediaeval  archaeology  may  be  considered  to  have 
been  initiated  by  De  Caumont,  who  studied  especially  the  monu¬ 
ments  of  Normandy.  His  labours  found  a  quick  echo  in  England. 
Knowledge  of  the  monuments  of  these  two  regions  far  to  the  north, 
inaccessible  to  the  artistic  centres  of  the  South,  gave  from  the  be¬ 
ginning  an  impression  of  slow  and  late  development  for  Romanesque. 

From  Normandy,  the  centre  of  archaeological  research  was  soon 
transferred  to  Paris.  The  new  school  displayed  from  the  start  an 
admirable  spirit  of  critical  scepticism.  In  fact  early  writers  had  too 
often  loved  the  glory  of  their  native  land  with  greater  fervour  than 
was  compatible  with  impartial  judgment.  Monuments  of  the  au¬ 
thor’s  country  had  been  ascribed  to  fabulous  antiquity;  any  docu¬ 
mentary  evidence,  especially  if  it  tended  to  establish  great  age  for 
the  local  antiquities,  had  been  accepted  without  criticism  of  style. 
Under  De  Caumont  a  more  scientific  spirit  had  already  begun  to 
reign.  The  new  school  regarded  all  with  doubt,  no  date  which  could 
be  questioned  was  accepted.  Monuments  were  carefully  and  mi¬ 
nutely  compared  and  correlated.  With  a  fine  scorn  for  the  chauvin¬ 
ism  of  the  earlier  generation,  this  school  tended  to  accept  the  latest, 
rather  than  the  earliest,  date  possible. 

The  leader  of  the  new  movement  was  M.  Lefevre-Pontalis.  His 
Architecture  Religieuse  dans  V ancien  Diocese  de  Soissons,  overthrew 
the  chronology  of  Fleury,  and  became  the  foundation-stone  of  the 
modern  science  of  mediaeval  archaeology. 

The  basis  of  departure  for  the  chronological  study  in  this  book  was 
narrow  —  the  author  confined  himself  to  the  Soissonnais,  a  district 
characterized  by  a  singular  penury  of  documents.  The  terminus  ad 
quern  was  the  abbey  of  St.-Denis,  1137-1140;  he  found  an  earlier 
point  of  support  in  the  priory  of  Bellefontaine,  the  construction  of 


THE  CHRONOLOGICAL  PROBLEM 


1 1 

which  was  authorized  in  1125;  by  a  masterly  study  of  the  internal 
evidence,  he  arrived  at  the  conclusion  that  the  ambulatory  of  Mor- 
ienval  must  date  from  the  early  years  of  the  XII  century.  This  was 
a  modification  of  the  same  author’s  earlier,  and  it  seems  to  me 
sounder,  opinion,  that  the  ambulatory  of  Morienval  was  built  in  the 
last  quarter  of  the  XI  century. 

There  ensued  a  controversy.  Moved  by  the  spirit  of  reaction 
against  the  excessively  early  dating  of  the  previous  generation, 
scholars  rushed  to  the  attack  of  this  dating  of  Morienval.  Into  the 
discussion  there  entered  comparison  only  with  the  undated  churches 
of  the  Ile-de-France.  M.  Lefevre-Pontalis  again  yielded;  it  was  con¬ 
ceded  that  the  ambulatory  of  Morienval  was  built  only  after  1122 
when  relics  were  translated. 

This  solution  of  the  controversy,  like  so  many  solutions  of  archaeo¬ 
logical  discussions,  was  a  politic  compromise,  the  truth  of  which  was 
never  in  any  absolute  fashion  proved.  I  can  not  help  feeling  that 
M.  Lefevre-Pontalis’  first  position  was  probably  nearer  right  than 
his  later  one,  and  that  if  he  had  held  fast  to  it,  we  should  have  less 
rejected  documents  for  which  to  account.  Morienval  must  be  much 
older  than  Bellefontaine,  which  the  documents  discovered  by  M. 
Lefevre-Pontalis  give  reason  to  believe  was  begun  in  1125.  There¬ 
fore  to  assume  the  ambulatory  of  Morienval  as  a  dated  monument 
of  after  1122,  was  opening  the  door  to  the  possibility  of  grave  error. 

Nevertheless,  the  question  was  considered  as  closed,  and  the 
chronology  of  the  Ile-de-France  as  definitely  settled.  Studies  were 
extended  to  the  rest  of  France  and  to  foreign  countries.  Monument 
after  monument  was  examined  separately,  and  its  date  determined 
by  comparison  with  the  edifices  of  the  Ile-de-France  or  with  other 
buildings,  of  which  the  chronology  had  by  similar  means  been  estab¬ 
lished.  Any  documents  inconsistent  with  the  archaeological  system 
that  thus  grew  up  were  simply  set  aside.  This  seems  to  be  the  ex¬ 
planation  of  the  formidable  list  of  disregarded  documents  that  we 
have  enumerated. 


^  Lefevre-Pontalis,  Arch.  Rel.,  I,  74. 


12  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

From  time  to  time  investigators  in  the  provinces  of  France,  or  in 
Spain  or  Italy,  by  studying  the  monuments  and  documents  of  a  local 
region,  arrived  at  a  somewhat  earlier  chronology.  Such  scholars, 
however,  seldom  affected  the  archaeological  opinion  of  the  world. 
Any  chronology,  inconsistent  with  the  orthodox  chronology,  was  a 
priori  rejected.  The  only  dissenting  voice  given  serious  considera¬ 
tion,  was  that  of  M.  Marignan,  who  proposed  to  move  the  entire 
chronological  chain  a  half  century  later! 

Indeed,  the  scholars  of  the  last  half  century,  while  always  keenly 
on  the  alert  against  the  danger  of  assigning  too  early  a  date,  seem  to 
have  been  singularly  oblivious  of  the  converse  danger  of  assigning  a 
date  too  late.  The  possibility  that  any  given  monument  may  actu¬ 
ally  be  earlier  than  it  can  be  demonstrated  to  be,  has  been  lost  from 
sight.  It  has  become  a  received  maxim  of  archaeology  that  a  thing 
may  be  later,  but  can  not  be  earlier,  than  it  can  be  proved  to  be.  One 
feels  throughout  this  literature,  that  the  writers  are  keenly  on  their 
guard  against  dating  too  early.  Reproaches  are  addressed  to  those 
scholars  who  have  not  sufficiently  weighed  the  possibility  that  a 
monument  may  be  later  than  the  documents  indicate.  The  writers 
seem  to  pride  themselves  upon  being  too  clever  to  have  fallen  into 
such  a  trap.  But  they  show  no  caution  against  the  danger  of  dating 
too  late.  Such  archaeologists  are  constantly  asking  themselves  in 
regard  to  any  monument :  “  may  it  not  be  later  ?  ”,  and  unless  positive 
proof  is  forthcoming,  are  very  apt  to  conclude  that  it  is.  They  have 
an  air  of  virtue  in  selecting  the  latest  possible  date,  as  if  a  temptation 
had  been  victoriously  overcome.  It  seems  to  have  been  forgotten 
that,  by  the  law  of  averages,  it  is  safer,  in  cases  of  latitude,  to 
assume  the  middle,  rather  than  the  latest  possible  date.  By  always 
choosing,  in  cases  of  doubt,  the  latest  date,  a  generation  of  archae¬ 
ologists  has  inch  by  inch  edged  Romanesque  chronology  down. 

Moreover,  archaeological  method  has  assumed  for  the  Ile-de- 
France  the  same  artistic  hegemony  over  Europe  before  1 140  that  the 
region  manifestly  possessed  afterwards.  Yet  it  is  certain  that  before 
the  XII  century  the  art  of  the  Ile-de-France  was  distinctly  retarda- 


THE  CHRONOLOGICAL  PROBLEM 


13 


laire.  The  rib-vaulted  nave  of  Durham  cathedral,  in  the  north  of 
England,  where  art  was  certainly  not  precocious,  was  projected  in 
1093,  although  a  parallel  stage  of  development  does  not  seem  to  have 
been  reached  in  the  Ile-de-France  until  thirty  years  later.  No  figure 
sculpture  in  stone  worthy  of  the  name,  appears  to  have  existed  in  the 
neighbourhood  of  Paris  until  nearly  1 140,  although  such  was  executed 
in  Lombardy,  in  Languedoc,  in  Burgundy  and  in  Spain  forty  years 
before.  No  building,  at  least  so  far  as  we  know,  comparable  to  Santi¬ 
ago,  or  St.-Sernin,  or  S.  Ambrogio,  or  Cluny,  or  St.  Mark’s,  or  the 
cathedral  of  Pisa  was  erected  in  the  Ile-de-France  before  St. -Denis. 
Capitals  with  naturalistic  leafage  are  found  at  Santiago  in  Spain 
forty  years  before  they  appear  in  northern  France.  However  much 
one  may  —  and  must  —  admire  the  rural  architecture  of  the  Ile-de- 
France,  the  fact  is  certain  that  until  1140  it  was  distinctly  retarda- 
taire  in  comparison  with  the  more  southern  districts  of  France,  with 
Italy  and  with  Spain. 

The  danger  of  an  archaeological  method  which  dated  the  archi¬ 
tecture  of  all  Europe  on  the  basis  of  that  of  Paris  seems  therefore 
manifest. 

In  the  hope  of  throwing  light  upon  the  problem  raised  by  the  con¬ 
flict  between  the  unanimous  opinion  of  the  archaeologists  on  the  one 
hand,  and  the  nearly  unanimous  evidence  of  the  documents  on  the 
other,  I  have  set  at  the  beginning  of  this  volume  a  list  of  the  dated 
monuments  of  the  period  in  question.  While  this  makes  no  pretense 
of  being  complete,  it  is,  I  think,  sufficient  to  reveal  the  fact  that  the 
documentary  evidence  for  Romanesque  chronology  is  far  more 
abundant  than  has  hitherto  been  suspected.  The  list  includes  not 
only  monuments  in  France,  but  a  certain  number  in  Italy,  Spain  and 
other  lands,  the  art  of  which  shows  stylistic  affiliation  with  that  of 
France  during  the  Romanesque  period. 

This  chart  makes  it  clear  that  the  Romanesque  art  of  Europe  be¬ 
fore  1 1 40  was  far  from  presenting  that  uniform  and  logical  develop¬ 
ment  which  characterized  the  Ile-de-France  after  that  date.  The 
idea  of  evolution,  combined  with  a  vicious  tradition  of  criticism  in- 


14  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

herited  from  Vasari,  appears  to  have  led  the  archaeological  world 
into  a  false  conception  of  the  history  of  mediaeval  art.  The  smooth 
and  orderly  progress  that  actually  did  exist  in  certain  arts,  such  as 
transitional  architecture,  or  Italian  painting  of  the  Quattrocento, 
has  been  assumed  to  hold  in  all  periods  and  all  styles.  The  history  of 
art  has  been  viewed  as  a  gradual  and  continuous  unfolding  from 
crude  beginnings  towards  ultimate  perfection.  Periods  of  decline 
have  of  course  been  recognized,  but  have  not  been  allowed  to  disturb 
belief  in  evolutionary  principles. 

It  is,  however,  a  very  open  question  to  what  extent  the  facts  in  the 
history  of  art  correspond  with  the  theory  of  evolution  as  expounded 
in  the  biological  sciences.  The  modern  war  monuments  in  Perigord 
are  certainly  quite  different  from  the  pre-historic  cave -paintings, 
but  how  much  actual  progress  they  display  might  well  be  disputed. 
The  truth  seems  to  be  that  the  earliest  art  of  which  we  have  record  is 
about  as  good  as  any  which  the  human  race  has  succeeded  in  produc¬ 
ing  during  some  forty  thousand  years  of  nearly  unceasing  endeavour. 
More  careful  study  of  the  painting  of  the  XI  and  XII  centuries  has 
revealed  the  fact  that  many  of  what  had  been  thought  to  be  discov¬ 
eries  of  the  Quattrocento  painters  had  been  anticipated  by  their 
Romanesque  predecessors.  From  the  tombs  of  Venasque,  Bobbio 
and  Pavia  we  learn  that  the  VII  and  VIII  centuries,  instead  of  being 
an  age  of  the  utmost  artistic  degeneration,  were  capable  of  produc¬ 
ing  subtle  and  thoughtful  carved  decoration  in  stone  of  the  finest 
execution. 

The  history  of  art,  considered  in  its  broad  outlines,  seems  to  show, 
not  a  continuous  evolution  from  lower  to  higher  forms,  but  a  number 
of  recurrences  of  the  cycle  archaic,  classic,  decadent,  each  of  which 
ends  approximately  where  it  began. ^  It  would,  however,  be  easy  to 
exaggerate  the  regularity  and  persistence  of  these  cycles.  Whole  arts, 

'The  paintings  in  the  cave  at  Altamira  in  the  Asturias,  discovered  by  a  Spaniard  in  1879, 
sneered  at  by  the  orthodox,  finally  won  official  recognition  from  the  French  Academy  in  1906. 
It  took  twenty-seven  years  for  an  evident  truth  to  permeate  the  bars  of  prejudice  raised  by  the 
theory  of  evolution. 

^  It  is  worthy  of  remark  that  archaic  art  tends  to  be  religious,  decadent  art,  secular. 


THE  CHRONOLOGICAL  PROBLEM 


15 


like  Byzantine  painting,  can  not  be  pigeon-holed  in  such  categories, 
and  any  movement  which  they  display  can  only  be  characterized  as 
aimless  drifting.  Now  Romanesque  figure  art  appears  to  be  of  this 
type.  We  find  in  it,  as  a  rule,  change,  but  not  necessarily  advance. 
Only  in  the  transition  to  Gothic  does  the  style  become,  in  any  true 
sense  of  the  word,  archaic. 

The  orthodox  chronology  of  Romanesque  has  assumed  a  constant 
progression  from  lower  to  higher  forms  which  did  not  in  fact  exist. 
It  is  easy  to  say  that  any  work  which  is  crude  is  early,  and  any  work 
which  is  fine  is  late.  This  facile  formula  may  satisfy  those  who  seek 
generalities,  and  shun  the  sifting  of  complicated  evidence.  Its  fallacy 
has,  however,  always  been  tacitly  admitted.  No  serious  archaeolo¬ 
gist  would  question  that  the  extremely  crude  sculptures  of  Chambon 
(Ill.  1250)  are  of  the  XII  century;  whereas  the  much  finer  sculptures 
of  the  cloister  at  Moissac  (Ill.  262-273)  are  admitted  to  be  of  iioo. 
A  glance  at  the  chart  will  reveal  a  great  number  of  similar  anomalies. 
Polished  Santiago  was  being  built  at  the  same  moment  as  rough  St.- 
Nicolas  of  Caen.  The  technically  advanced  sculptures  of  the  throne 
of  S.  Niccola  at  Bari  (Ill.  1 52-1 55)  were  carved  in  1098  ;  while  the  far 
more  primitive  work  at  Rutigliano  (Ill.  163-165)  is  of  1108.  Tech¬ 
nically  and  stylistically  the  lintel  of  St.-Genis-des-Fontaines  (Ill. 
513)  dated  1020  or  still  more  that  of  St.-Andre-de-SorrMe  (Ill.  514- 
515)  and  the  lunette  of  the  cathedral  of  Troia  (Ill.  172)  which  was 
executed  about  1119,  would  seem  to  be  related;  instead,  however,  of 
being  works  of  the  same  school,  they  are  separated  geographically  by 
half  of  Europe,  and  chronologically  by  a  century.^  The  cathedral  of 

^  M.  Bertaux,  664-665,  ascribes  the  tympanum  of  Troia  to  c.  1200.  “Le  groupement  des 
figures  et  le  travail  des  draperies  rappellent  d’une  maniere  frappante  le  relief  du  portail  de 
Monte  S.  Angelo  qui  est  date  de  1198.”  In  this  I  confess  that  I  am  unable  to  follow  the  eminent 
archaeologist.  His  reasoning  is  indeed  a  typical  example  of  that  partiality  for  late  dating  of 
which  we  have  been  complaining.  The  bronze  doors  below  the  tympanum  of  the  portal  of 
Troia  were  executed  in  1119;  consequently  the  portal  which  holds  them  must  be  earlier.  The 
style  of  the  Troia  tympanum  is  entirely  in  accord  with  this  documentary  evidence.  In  placing 
the  tympanum  of  Troia  (Ill.  172)  beside  that  of  S.  Maria  of  Monte  S.  Angelo  (Ill.  231),  I  am 
struck  hot  by  the  resemblances  of  which  M.  Bertaux  speaks,  but  by  the  complete  difference. 
It  is  only  necessary  to  compare  the  faces  to  be  persuaded  that  the  Troia  relief  is  three  quarters 
of  a  century  earlier,  and  indeed  dates  from  precisely  the  time  the  documentary  evidence  would 
lead  us  to  believe. 


1 6  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

Foggia,  begun  in  1179,  is  a  copy,  practically  without  advance,  of  the 
cathedral  of  Troia,  begun  in  1093.  The  cathedral  of  Bitonto  repro¬ 
duced,  a  century  later,  S.  Niccola  of  Bari.  The  font  of  St.-Barthel- 
emy  of  Liege,  dated  1 1 1 2,  is  of  a  far  more  developed  style  than  the 
other  font,  now  in  the  museum  at  Brussels,  and  dated  1149.  The 
Area  Santa  of  Oviedo  (Ill.  6^6-666)  dated  1075,  seems  closely  related 
to,  but  less  advanced  than,  the  doors  of  Hildesheim,  dated  1015. 
These  Hildesheim  doors  of  1015  appear  much  more  advanced  than 
the  lintel  of  St.-Genis-des-Fontaines  of  1020  (Ill.  513). 

In  Auvergne  there  were  executed  in  the  XII  century,  and  even  at 
an  advanced  period  of  the  XII  century,  buildings  in  which  the  orna¬ 
mental  sculpture  was  exceedingly  crude.  There  is  no  contemporary 
structure  in  England,  nor  in  Apulia,  nor  in  Lombardy,  nor  in  Spain, 
nor  in  France  to  rival  in  technical  finish  St.  Mark’s  of  Venice  or  the 
cathedral  of  Pisa.  Consider  the  gulf  which  separates  either  of  these 
structures  from  the  cathedral  of  Durham,  which  was  not  begun  until 
1093  ! 

Indeed,  archaeological  controversies  give  proof  of  the  lack  of  prog¬ 
ress  characteristic  at  times  of  the  art  of  the  Middle  Ages.  It  is  still 
disputed  whether  the  golden  altar  of  S.  Ambrogio  be  of  the  IX  or  of 
the  XII  century;  whether  the  sculptures  of  Cividale  be  of  the  VIII 
or  of  the  XII ;  whether  the  baptistry  at  Florence  be  of  the  VI  or  of 
the  XII ;  whether  the  Hexham  and  Bewcastle  crosses  be  of  the  XII 
or  the  VII ;  whether  S.  Miniato  be  of  the  XI  or  of  the  XII.  Such 
differences  of  opinion  force  us  to  recognize  that  the  lapse  of  even 
six  centuries  brought  on  occasion  a  change  of  style  so  slight  that  we 
are  unable  to  detect  it,  if  it  exist  at  all.  No  one  has  yet  been  able 
to  date  mediaeval  frescos  on  their  style.  Ivories  of  one  century 
show  the  same  characteristics  as  sculptures  of  another.  The  greatest 
difference  of  opinion  still  reigns  among  scholars  as  to  the  dating  of 
certain  miniatures. 

From  all  this,  we  can  only  conclude  that  Romanesque  art  was  sin¬ 
gularly  uneven  in  its  production.  Nor  is  it  my  new  chronology,  I 
hasten  to  add,  that  introduces  this  chaos.  It  has  always  existed. 


THE  CHRONOLOGICAL  PROBLEM 


17 


flagrantly  existed,  in  the  orthodox  system,  although  the  fact  has  been 
passed  over  in  silence.  It  was  the  fashion  to  assume  that  Roman¬ 
esque  art  displayed  the  same  orderly  progression  which  is  character¬ 
istic  of  French  transitional  architecture.  Why  should  troubling  dis¬ 
crepancies  be  insisted  upon  ? 

Although  Romanesque  art  is  not,  broadly  speaking,  evolutionary, 
it  is  still  not  without  change,  nor  without  certain  tendencies  which  it 
is  entirely  possible  to  trace.  Thus  from  an  inspection  of  the  chart  it 
appears  that  in  general  the  South  was  in  advance  over  the  North ; 
Italy  and  Spain  abreast  of  southern  France,  southern  France  in  ad¬ 
vance  over  northern  France,  northern  France  over  England,  Bel¬ 
gium  ^  and  Germany.  While  this  is  true  of  the  general  state  of  the 
art,  individual  motives  travelled  with  amazing  rapidity  from  one  end 
of  Europe  to  the  other.  And  in  the  same  region  we  may  find  produc¬ 
tions  of  the  utmost  divergence,  executed  side  by  side,  contempo¬ 
raneously. 

This  vital  fact  should  be  borne  in  mind  in  considering  the  chronol¬ 
ogy  of  the  monuments,  the  documented  date  of  which  has  been  re¬ 
jected  by  orthodox  archaeology.  These  dates  do  not  fall  outside  the 
broad  frame  of  Romanesque  development,  as  indicated  by  the  docu¬ 
mentary  evidence  assembled  in  the  chart.  There  is,  I  think,  no  fea¬ 
ture  in  any  one  of  the  monuments  of  which  the  dates  have  been 
set  aside,  which  can  not  be  paralleled  in  some  contemporary  and 
dated  monument. 

I  am  therefore  persuaded  that  orthodox  archaeology  is  in  error  in 
rejecting  the  dates  furnished  by  the  documents  for  this  group  of 
monuments.  In  the  following  chapters  it  will  appear  that  the  docu¬ 
ments  and  the  monuments  are  in  reality  in  perfect  agreement ;  and 
the  history  of  Romanesque  art  will  be  seen  in  a  light  less  dramatic, 
less  Darwinistic,  but  I  think  more  convincing,  than  that  hitherto 
imagined. 


See  Lemaire,  307-308. 


II 

THE  ELEVENTH  CENTURY 


Modern  art  may  be  considered  to  have  begun  with  the  Byzantine 
renaissance  of  the  X  century.  This  outburst  of  artistic  activity  seems 
to  have  spread  from  the  East  over  Europe.  Before  the  year  looo  re¬ 
newed  artistic  activity  appears  sporadically  in  several  widely  sepa¬ 
rated  regions  of  the  West.  In  Spain  architecture  rose  during  the  X 
century  to  extraordinary  heights ;  capitals  were  carved  with  surpris¬ 
ing  skill  in  the  Rhone  valley,  as  in  the  crypt  of  Cruas  or  the  baptistry 
of  Venasque ;  while  in  Germany  the  Othonian  miniatures  and  ivories 
developed  types  of  such  beauty,  that  they  impressed  indelibly  the 
memory  of  the  XII  century  sculptors  of  France,  and  still  serve  as 
models  to  artists  of  to-day.  By  the  XI  century,  the  renaissance  had 
enflamed  the  entire  continent  of  Europe. 

In  the  East,  figure  sculpture  was  applied  to  the  exterior  of  churches 
apparently  as  early  as  the  VII  century,  certainly  from  the  time  of  the 
X  century  renaissance.  The  church  of  Achthamar  in  Armenia,  a 
dated  monument  of  91 5-921  is  adorned  with  sculptures  which  seem 
to  indicate  an  Eastern  derivation  for  many  of  the  later  develop¬ 
ments  in  the  West.^  Not  only  is  the  fact  of  monumental  sculpture  in 
stone  foreshadowed,  but  here  are  found  numerous  details  which  have 
become  characteristic  of  occidental  sculpture  of  the  XII  century. 
The  draperies  of  Guglielmo  ^  and  Santiago  (Ill.  681-684),  the  medal¬ 
lions  of  Angouleme  (Ill.  929-931),  the  adossed  reliefs  of  Moissac 
(Ill.  262-273)  St.-Michel-de-Cuxa  (Ill.  558,  559),  the  gestures  of 
Chartres  and  Arles  (Ill.  1369,  1371,  1373,  1374,  1376),  a  myriad  other 
features  of  occidental  sculptures  are  anticipated. 

^  The  church  at  Achthamar  has  been  published  by  Strzygowski,  Armenier,  289  f. 

^  See  Porter,  Lomb.  Arch.,  IV,  Plate  83,  Fig.  8 ;  Plate  142,  Fig.  2,  3 ;  Plate  143,  Fig.  i ;  Plate 
144,  Fig.  I,  2;  Plate  145,  Fig.  i,  3.  Also,  Porter,  Les  Debuts  de  la  Sculpture  Romane,  51,  and 
Monteverdi,  23,  13,  14,  48. 


THE  ELEVENTH  CENTURY 


19 


One  of  the  oldest  extant  monuments  of  western  sculpture  is  pre¬ 
served  in  a  remote  village  of  the  eastern  Pyrenees.  It  is  precisely  in 
such  regions  that  archaeology  has  taught  us  to  expect  retardataire 
art ;  and,  indeed,  no  one  who  had  an  archaeological  reputation  to  lose, 
or  still  less  to  win,  would  ever  have  dared  assign  the  lintel  of  St.- 
Genis-des-Fontaines  (Ill.  513)  to  an  earlier  period  than  the  latter  part 
of  the  XI  century,  were  it  not  for  a  unique  chance.  The  lintel  is 
dated  between  1020  and  1021  by  an  inscription  of  unquestionable 
authenticity.^  This  rare  good  fortune  furnishes  us  with  a  conspic¬ 
uous  landmark  to  guide  our  course  over  the  uncharted  waters  of 
the  early  XI  century. 

St.-Genis-des-Fontaines  does  not  stand  alone.  In  the  tympanum 
of  the  not  very  distant  church  of  Arles-sur-Tech  is  incorporated  a 
relief  (Ill.  518)  obviously  of  the  same  school,  but  of  finer  and  more 
advanced  execution.  This  relief  also  happens  to  be  dated;  the  church 
was  consecrated  in  1046.2  We  can,  therefore,  see  the  progress  that 
has  been  scored  in  a  quarter  of  a  century.  The  same  rate  of  develop- 

i  +  ANNO  VIDESIMO  QVARTO  RENNATE  RO’BERTO  REGE  WILIELMVS 
GRA  DEI  ABA  1 ISTA  OPERA  FIERI  IVSSE  IN  ONORE  SCI’  GENESII  CENOBII  CVE 
VOCANT  FONTANAS. 

*  Brutails,  57;  Cong.  Arch.,  1906,  131.  The  relationship  of  the  Christ  oi  Arles-sur-Tech  (Ill. 
518)  to  that  of  St.-Genis  (Ill.  513)  hardly  needs  demonstration.  The  same  bead  ornament 
occurs  on  the  border  of  the  garment  of  the  Christ  at  Arles,  and  on  those  of  the  angels  at  St.- 
Genis.  The  position  of  the  two  Christs  is  identical,  even  to  the  detail  that  in  each  case  the  book 
is  grasped  in  the  left  hand  about  its  upper  outer  corner.  Both  have  the  same  peculiar  top¬ 
shaped  head.  The  beard  in  both  cases  is  pointed,  and  indicated  by  the  same  convention  of 
parallel  incised  lines.  The  convention  of  parallel  folds  on  the  right  sleeve  is  in  both  cases  the 
same.  The  pattern  on  the  books  is  very  similar,  and  the  border  identical.  In  each  case  the 
draperies  form  a  circle  over  the  right  knee.  In  each  case  the  hair  is  parted  in  the  middle,  and 
indicated  by  parallel  incisions.  The  eyes  in  each  case  are  indicated  by  double  incised  ovals.  In 
both  cases  the  drapery  falls  over  the  feet  in  similar  folds. 

On  the  other  hand  I  entirely  fail  to  see  any  close  relationship  between  the  Christ  of  Arles- 
sur-Tech  and  the  sculptures  at  St.-Michel-de-Cuxa  (Ill.  556-559),  Corneilla-de-Conflent  (Ill. 
528),  St.-Jean-le-Vieux  at  Perpignan  (Ill.  618-620)  or  the  tombs  at  Elne  (Ill.  623-627).  When 
Comte  de  Lasteyrie  (638)  suggests  such  a  comparison,  especially  with  the  last  two  monuments, 
I  can  not  believe  that  he  really  meant  to  say,  as  his  words  imply,  that  the  style  of  these  monu¬ 
ments  of  the  XI  and  of  the  XIII  centuries  is  similar.  The  eminent  archaeologist  was,  I  take  it, 
merely  perplexed  and  exasperated  to  find  that  these  surely  dated  monuments  failed  to  show 
that  evolutionary  progress  towards  more  developed  forms  which  orthodox  theory  had  led  him 
to  expect.  It  is  indeed  singular  that  this,  and  so  many  similar,  examples  of  contradiction  be¬ 
tween  the  monuments  and  documents  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  theory  on  the  other,  should 
never  have  raised  the  suspicion  that  the  difficulty  might  lie  with  the  theory,  and  not  with  the 
monuments  and  documents. 


20  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

merit,  if  maintained,  might  easily  arrive  in  another  half  century  at 
the  perfection  of  the  capitals  of  Cluny  (Ill.  5-10).^ 

The  sculptor  of  Arles-sur-Tech  doubtless  knew  the  earlier  work  at 
St.-Genis-des-Fontaines ;  but  that  was  not  the  only  source  of  his  in¬ 
spiration.  If  we  compare  his  facial  types,  the  folds  and  borders  of  his 
draperies,  the  drawing  of  the  feet,  the  ornamental  patterns  with  the 
bible  of  Roda,2  a  Catalonian  manuscript  of  the  X  century,  we  shall 
be  convinced  that  he  studied  miniatures  as  well. 

Another  monument  belongs  to  this  same  group  of  sculptures.  In 
the  lintel  of  St.-Andre-de-SorrMe  (Ill.  514-515),  which  is  the  next 
village  to  St.-Genis-des-Fontaines,  are  sculptures  so  similar  that 
one  is  almost  tempted  to  call  them  the  work  of  the  same  hand.  St.- 
Andre  is,  however,  evidently  slightly  later  than  St.-Genis;  if  we 
compare  the  heads  of  the  three  Christs  (Ill.  513,  515,  518)  we  shall 
perceive  without  difficulty  that  they  fall  in  the  order  St.-Genis,  St.- 
Andre,  Arles-sur-Tech.  The  relief  of  St.-Andre  may  be  assigned  to 
c.  1030  without  fear  of  serious  error. 

In  the  interior  of  the  church  at  St.-Andre  has  been  preserved  a 
fragment  of  relief  (Ill.  517),  mutilated  almost  beyond  recognition. 
It  represents  a  haloed  figure,  possibly  an  apostle,  holding  an  object 
broken  away,  perhaps  a  book.  The  interest  of  this  sculpture  for  our 
study  lies  in  the  circumstance  that  the  legs  are  crossed. 

This  mannerism,  which  became  a  characteristic  motive  of  the 
Spanish  and  Aquitanian  schools  of  the  XII  century,  is  of  very  ancient 
origin.  It  is  found,  for  example,  in  stone  sculpture,  in  a  Roman  relief 
of  the  museum  of  Arles  (Ill.  516),  and  in  the  spandrel  figures  of 
Zwartnotz  in  Armenia,®  a  monument  which  dates  from  641-66 1. 
The  latter  instance  is  of  especial  interest,  because  the  legs  are  placed 

^  In  point  of  fact,  the  school  of  the  Pyrenees  had  not  at  this  date,  at  least  in  so  far  as  it  is 
possible  to  judge  from  the  extant  monuments,  advanced  beyond  the  point  of  the  tympanum  of 
St.-Feliu-d’Amond  (Ill.  548).  Here  the  right  wing  of  the  left  angel  is  still  executed  with  the 
same  convention  used  for  the  left  wing  of  the  St.  Matthew  at  Arles-sur-Tech  (Ill.  518).  In 
other  respects,  however,  the  style  at  St.-Feliu  is  strikingly  different  from  that  of  Arles.  The 
St.-Feliu  tympanum  should  be  compared  with  the  tympanum  at  Mzchet,  illustrated  by  Strzy- 
gowski,  Armenier,  602. 

^  Paris,  Bib.  Nat.,  Cod.  lat.  6,  illustrated  by  Clemen,  335-336. 

^  Published  by  Strzygowski,  Armenier,  427. 


THE  ELEVENTH  CENTURY 


21 


in  precisely  the  “x”  position  generally  associated  with  the  XII  cen¬ 
tury  work  of  Toulouse.  The  motive  of  crossed  legs  was  also  widely 
diffused  among  ivories  and  miniatures  in  the  East  and  West.  It  is 
impossible  to  determine  from  which  among  the  many  possible  sources 
our  sculptor  borrowed  the  motive.^ 

It  should  not,  of  course,  be  assumed  that  St.-Genis  was  the  first 
architectural  sculpture  in  stone  in  the  West  after  the  Romans.  It  is, 
on  the  contrary,  certain  that  sculpture  in  stone  never  ceased  to  be 
executed  in  Europe.  In  England  the  crosses  of  Bewcastle  (670)  and 

^  I  am  tempted  to  risk  the  conjecture  that  the  motive  of  crossed  legs  probably  originated  in 
Greek  Asiatic  monuments,  like  the  Heroon  at  Tyrsa.  It  was  certainly  widely  diffused  in  the 
art  both  of  the  East  and  of  the  West  during  the  first  ten  centuries.  It  is  found,  for  example,  in 
a  Roman  relief  in  the  museum  at  Cairo,  illustrated  by  Strzygowski,  Cairo  Cat.,  21 ;  also  in  four 
bone-carvings  of  the  III-IV  centuries,  ibid.,  184-185,  and  Tafel  XV.  It  is  also  found  in  an 
ivory  book-cover  of  the  V,  VI  or  VII  century  preserved  in  the  archaeological  museum  at 
Ravenna,  and  illustrated  by  Pelka,  39 ;  in  an  Irish  manuscript  of  very  early  date,  Dublin,  Kells 
Gospel,  Trinity  College,  A.  I.  6  (58),  illustrated  by  Zimmermann,  169;  in  a  south  Anglo-Saxon 
gospel  of  the  IX  century,  Rome,  Vat.  Barb.  Lat.  570,  fol.  9  b,  illustrated  by  Zimmermann,  314; 
in  a  miniature  of  an  Apocalypse  of  975,  in  the  cathedral  of  Gerona,  Mas  phot.  C  27699  —  in 
this  case  the  legs  are  in  the  “x”  position ;  in  the  frescos  of  the  XI  century  at  S.  Angelo  in  For- 
mis,  near  Capua;  in  the  Register  of  New  Minster,  Winchester,  of  c.  1030,  British  Museum, 
Stowe  manuscript  960,  illustrated  by  Bond,  Thompson  and  Warner,  II,  17;  in  a  miniature  of 
the  Bible  of  Charles  the  Bald  at  the  Bibliotheque  Nationale,  illustrated  by  Venturi,  II,  281 ; 
in  a  psalter  of  the  same  library  dating  from  the  X  century,  illustrated  by  Diehl,  569;  in  a  min¬ 
iature  of  a  Bible  of  S.  Paolo  f.  1.  m.  at  Rome,  dating  from  the  third  quarter  of  the  IX  century, 
illustrated  by  Boinet,  PI.  CXXIV ;  in  a  St.  Gallen  manuscript  of  the  last  half  of  the  X 
century  at  the  Universitatsbibliothek  at  Basel,  No.  B  IV.  26,  f.  68,  illustrated  by  Escher, 
VIII ;  in  the  Bamberg  Apocalypse  of  the  X  century,  illustrated  by  Wolfflin,  38 ;  in  a  X  century 
Fulda  miniature  of  the  Universitatsbibliothek  at  Basel,  No.  A.  N.  IV.  18,  f.  3 1,  ed.  Escher,  34 ; 
in  a  manuscript  of  the  XI  or  XII  century,  illustrated  by  Diehl,  576;  in  a  manuscript  of  the 
Winchester  school,  early  XI  century,  British  Museum,  Stowe  944,  illustrated  by  Herbert,  PI. 
XIII ;  in  a  psalter  of  St.  Swithun’s  Priory,  school  of  Winchester,  XII  century,  British  Museum, 
Cotton  MS.,  Nero  C  IV,  f.  39;  in  the  miniatures  of  a  menologe  grec  of  the  XI  century, 
executed  at  Mount  Athos,  Moscow,  Bibliotheque  Synodale,  No.  183,  illustrated  by  Treneff; 
in  the  mosaics  of  the  Church  of  the  Nativity  at  Bethlehem,  assigned  to  the  XII  century;  in  the 
mosaics  of  Kief,  dating  from  soon  after  1037,  illustrated  by  Diehl,  482,  and  by  Millet  in  Andre 
Michel,  I,  2,  192,  etc.  Crossed  legs  are  also  characteristic  of  the  school  of  miniature  painting 
of  Salzburg  —  see  for  example  the  Perikopenbuch  von  St.-Erentrud,  Munchen,  Kgl.  Hof-  und 
Stiftsbibliothek,  Clm.  15903,  c.  p.  52  or  the  Gebhardsbibel  in  the  Stiftsbibliothek  of  Admont, 
Cod.  51 1,  illustrated  by  Swarzenski,  taf.  XXVIII,  XXIX,  XXX.  I  strongly  suspect,  however, 
that  this  group  of  manuscripts  was  influenced  by  the  sculptures  of  the  South-west,  Thence 
seem  to  come  the  attenuation,  the  revealing  draperies,  the  heads  tipped  up,  the  movement,  all 
characteristic  of  these  miniatures.  The  armour  is  of  precisely  the  same  type  as  in  the  cloister 
reliefs  of  Santo  Domingo  de  Silos  (Ill.  670).  There  is,  indeed,  nearly  formal  proof  that  the 
manuscripts  were  inspired  by  the  sculptures.  The  initials  of  the  Perikopenbuch  aus  Passau, 
Munich,  Clm.  16002,  illustrated  by  Swarzenski,  300,  have  adossed  figures  evidently  derived 
from  jamb  sculptures. 


22  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

Hexham  (740)  seem  satisfactorily  authenticated ;  ^  Messrs.  Prior  and 
Gardner  ascribe  numerous  other  works  to  the  centuries  preceding  the 
year  looo.^  At  Mainz  the  sculptured  tomb-stone  of  the  archbishop 
Hatto  (t9i3)  is  still  extant.^  In  France  there  is  documentary  evi¬ 
dence  that  stone  sculptures  were  made  before  the  year  1000.^  There 
are  indeed  extant  examples  which  may  be  dated  with  considerable 
confidence  to  this  period.  The  relief  at  Charlieu  (Ill.  i)  is  combined 
with  decorative  carving  of  an  unmistakably  Carlovingian  character.^ 
The  figures  over  the  window  of  the  Basse-Oeuvre  at  Beauvais  (Ill. 
141 1)  were  doubtless,  like  all  mediaeval  sculpture,  carved  before  they 
were  placed,  but  form  an  integral  part  of  the  cathedral  built  by 
Herve  (987-998).® 

Other  sculptures  have  been  assigned  on  the  basis  of  their  style  to  a 
date  before  1000.  In  the  exterior  of  the  apse  of  St.-Paul  near  Dax  are 
embedded  a  series  of  reliefs  (Ill.  327-332).  These  show  two  distinct 
manners.  To  one  group  belong  the  reliefs  representing  grotesques 
(Ill.  329),^  the  Maries  at  the  Tomb  (Ill.  327),’  a  griffin  and  Heaven 
(Ill.  328) ;  to  the  other  those  depicting  three  apostles  (Ill.  332),  the 
Last  Supper  (Ill.  331),  the  Betrayal  (Ill.  330),  the  Crucifixion  (Ill. 
330)  and  a  single  figure  (Ill.  228).  Comte  de  Lasteyrie,®  without  dis¬ 
tinguishing  between  the  two  sharply  differentiated  styles,  ascribes 
the  sculptures  to  the  X  century,  and  asserts  that  they  are  ancient 
fragments,  re-employed  in  the  XII  century  reconstruction  of  the  apse. 

I  think  the  eminent  archaeologist  has  again  been  led  astray  by  the 


^  Prof.  A.  S.  Cook  believes  that  the  English  crosses  are  of  the  XII  century.  See  his  letter  on 
The  Ruthwell  and  Bewcastle  Crosses  in  the  London  Times  Literary  Supplement,  June  30, 1921, 
p.  420,  with  bibliographical  references. 

^  1 09-1 44.  ^  Dehio,  173. 

^De  Lasteyrie,  635.  There  is  no  reason  for  assuming  that  such  sculptures  were  crude.  The 
English  crosses  of  Bewcastle  (670)  and  Hexham  (740)  are  technically  as  competent  as  per¬ 
formances  of  the  XII  century,  for  which  they  have  been  mistaken.  Ivory-carvings,  miniatures 
and  reliefs  in  metal  show  entire  mastery  of  plastic  form  on  the  part  of  Carlovingian  artists.  To 
assign  sculptures  to  the  X  century  simply  because  they  are  crude  is  uncritical. 

®  It  should  be  compared  with  a  plaque  in  the  museum  of  Carpentras. 

®  The  statement  that  the  fagade  is  not  of  987-998,  but  of  the  XI  century  {Cong.  Arch.,  1905, 
LXXIII,  3)  seems  to  be  based  solely  on  the  theory  that  all  mediaeval  buildings  must  be  later 
than  the  documents  indicate. 

^Restored.  *  i54- 


THE  ELEVENTH  CENTURY 


23 


orthodox  dogma  that  crude  sculptures  must  be  early.  In  regard  to 
the  date  of  the  first  group,  at  least,  we  need  not  remain  long  in  doubt. 
A  comparison  of  the  angel  to  the  left  of  the  tomb  in  the  Dax  relief  of 
the  Three  Maries  (Ill.  327)  with  the  angel  at  the  right  of  the  tym¬ 
panum  at  Toulouse  (Ill.  309)  will  satisfy  us  that  we  have  here  to  do 
with  works  of  the  first  quarter  of  the  XII  century. 

But  may  not  Comte  de  Lasteyrie’s  dating  be  correct  for  the  other 
set  of  reliefs  ? 

The  question  deserves  careful  investigation.  Let  us  compare  these 
reliefs  (Ill.  330-332)  with  those  of  the  Basse-Oeuvre  (Ill.  1411), 
which  we  have  seen  are  authentic  works  of  the  X  century.  The  two 
show  no  points  of  contact;  the  styles  are  entirely  different.  Simi¬ 
larly  when  we  compare  Dax  (Ill.  330-332)  with  Azay-le-Rideau^ 
(Ill.  896),  we  note  that  while  the  heads  are  set  on  the  bodies  in  the 
same  awkward  way,  and  certain  draperies  have  a  distant  similarity, 
the  two  styles  are  essentially  far  apart.  Nor  are  analogies  apparent 
with  the  relief  (Ill.  897)  which  forms  part  of  that  church  of  St.- 
Mesme  at  Chinon  which  was  under  construction  in  1025.2  Nor  ex¬ 
cept  in  the  beaded  ornament  of  the  borders  of  the  garments  (Ill. 
332),  also  characteristic  of  the  early  Catalan  school,  do  the  sculp¬ 
tures  of  Dax  show  points  of  contact  with  St.-Genis  (Ill.  513)  and  its 
derivatives.  It  is  rather  to  monuments  of  the  end  of  the  XI  or  the 
early  XII  century  that  our  reliefs  are  analogous. 

Thus  the  motive  of  a  sculptured  frieze  belongs  to  the  XII  century. 
The  earliest  extant  example  is  Guglielmo’s  at  the  cathedral  of 
Modena. 

^  The  style  of  this  fagade  is  that  which  by  most  archaeologists  is  associated  with  the  X  cen¬ 
tury.  Yet  no  explanation  has  ever  been  offered  why  monuments  of  this  period  should  be  so 
abundant  in  the  lower  Loire  basin,  and  so  rare  elsewhere  in  France.  The  sculptures  of  Azay-le- 
Rideau  (Ill.  896)  are  not  without  analogy  with  two  of  the  figures  now  enwalled  in  the  gable  of 
the  north  transept  of  St.-Hilaire-le-Grand  of  Poitiers  (Ill.  912).  Now  the  canons  of  St.-Hilaire 
returned  from  their  exile  of  nearly  a  century  at  Le  Puy  about  the  middle  of  the  X  century; 
and  it  is  tempting  to  see  in  the  figures  in  question  fragments  of  the  works  of  embellishment 
executed  at  St.-Hilaire  about  this  time.  The  style  of  the  capitals  and  of  the  ornament  over  the 
arcades  seems  clearly  to  be  that  of  the  second  half  of  the  X  century.  There  is  therefore  some 
reason  to  believe  that  the  sculptures  of  Azay-le-Rideau  are  really  of  this  period.  The  other  two 
figures  of  St.-Hilaire  are  of  an  advanced  period  of  the  XII  century  (Ill.  914). 

2  De  Lasteyrie,  1 52. 


24  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

The  application  of  such  a  frieze  to  the  exterior  of  an  apse  recurs 
elsewhere  only  at  Selles-sur-Cher  (Ill.  1077-1082).  It  will  be  neces¬ 
sary,  even  at  the  expense  of  a  considerable  digression,  to  establish  the 
chronology  of  Selles  and  a  group  of  related  monuments  before  pro¬ 
ceeding  further  with  the  discussion  of  Dax. 

The  upper  frieze  at  Selles  (Ill.  1082)  is  a  dated  monument  of 
1145.1 

The  lower  frieze  at  Selles,  as  well  as  the  reliefs  flanking  the  window, 
are  by  a  different  hand,  but  in  my  opinion  not  very  much  earlier.^ 
This  artist  shows  a  close  relationship  stylistically  with  a  bone  box  in 
the  Kaiser  Friederich  Museum  at  Berlin.  The  box®  is  called  by  Prof. 
Goldschmidt  a  Franconian  production  of  c.  iioo.  He  recognizes 
through  the  internal  evidence  that  it  must  be  the  work  of  two  very 
unequal  artists  working  in  collaboration ;  the  better  laid  out  the  gen¬ 
eral  lines  of  the  composition  and  finished  in  part  the  cover;  the  in¬ 
ferior  completed  the  work.  Now  it  is  this  second,  or  inferior,  artist 
v/ho  shows  close  points  of  contact  with  the  sculptor  of  the  Selles 
frieze.  The  eyes  in  the  two  works  are  done  in  the  same  extraordinary 
manner;  the  hair  is  similarly  rendered;  the  draperies  are  very 
alike ;  the  drawing  of  the  beards  and  the  noses  is  the  same ;  the  scene 
of  the  Betrayal  at  Selles  shows  a  Christ  and  Judas,  precisely  like  the 
Christ  and  Judas  on  the  box.  The  staffs  carried  by  the  executioners 
in  the  scene  of  the  Betrayal  of  the  box,  are  like  the  staffs  carried  by 
the  same  characters  in  the  same  scene  of  the  frieze.  The  develop¬ 
ment  of  a  long  series  of  scenes  in  the  two  works  is  similar.  In  both 
there  is  the  same  outre  iconography.  These  analogies  are  indeed  so 
striking  that  I  even  wonder  whether  the  sculptor  of  the  frieze 

^  Orthodox  archaeology,  as  usual,  disregards  the  documentary  evidence,  and  places  the  upper 
frieze  in  the  early  years  of  the  XII  century.  To  me,  however,  it  seems  clear  that  the  sculptures 
in  question  are  really  of  the  date  indicated  by  the  document.  The  style  (Ill.  1082)  is  closely 
analogous  to  that  of  the  east  window  of  Aulnay  (Ill.  981),  a  monument  admitted  to  date  from 
the  fourth  decade  of  the  XII  century. 

^  Only  a  few  fragments,  like  the  Visitation  of  the  north  wall  (Ill.  1076),  analogous  to  the  re¬ 
liefs  of  Ste.-Radegonde  of  Poitiers  (Ill.  907,  908)  have  the  appearance  of  dating  from  the  early 
XII  century.  We  are,  however,  always  too  apt  to  forget  that  a  sculptor  who  learned  his  style 
in  the  early  years  of  the  XII  century,  might  easily  still  be  active  in  1145. 

^Published  by  Goldschmidt,  II,  No.  173. 


THE  ELEVENTH  CENTURY  25 

at  Selles  was  not  the  same  artist  who  completed  the  Berlin 
boxd 

If  we  accept  Prof.  Goldschmidt’s  attribution  of  the  box  to  the 
school  of  Franconia,  we  must  conclude  that  the  sculptor  of  Selles 
was  a  German.  That,  however,  does  not  seem  to  me  to  be  proven. 
The  closest  precedent  for  his  style  which  I  know  is  the  tympanum 
of  La  Lande  de  Fronzac  (Ill.  917).  May  it  not  be  that  this  crude 
and  backward  artist  was  formed  in  the  West  of  France  ? 

The  same  hand  can  be  recognized  in  a  capital  from  the  Eglise  du 
Ronceray  (Ill.  922)  now  in  the  Musee  Archeologique  at  Angers. 
Here  again  is  represented  one  of  the  scenes  from  the  Passion  which 
seem  to  have  formed  part  of  the  stock  in  trade  of  our  artist.  This 
capital  at  Angers  gives  us  a  point  of  chronological  support;  the 
church  was  consecrated  in  1119,  so  the  capital  presumably  is  earlier 
than  that  year. 

The  lower  frieze  at  Selles  (Ill.  1077-1081)  is,  as  we  have  seen,  by 
this  same  artist  who  worked  at  Angers  before  1119;  but  there  are 
reasons  for  believing  that  it  is  a  much  later  work.  The  scenes  from- 
the  Passion  which  it  represents  (Ill.  1079-1081)  belong  to  the 
Santiago-Beaucaire-St.-Gilles  cycle.  The  seated  Pilate  is  a  reversal 
of  the  seated  Christ  in  the  Santiago  Crowning  with  Thorns  (Ill.  680). 
The  composition  of  the  group  of  executioners  haling  Christ  before 
Pilate,  repeats  that  of  the  St.-Gilles  frieze  (Ill.  1321);  two  farther 
apart  drag  Christ  from  in  front,  two  close  together  push  Him  from 
behind ;  Christ’s  hands  are  in  each  case  in  the  same  position,  and  in 
both  works  the  foremost  executioner  calls  Herod’s  attention  with  the 
same  gesture.  The  Washing  of  the  Feet  (Ill.  1079)  repeats,  line  for 
line,  the  composition  of  Beaucaire  (Ill.  1292,  1293)  and  St.-Gilles  (Ill. 
1318).  Now  since  the  Selles  frieze  copies  the  St.-Gilles  frieze,  and 

*  This  suggestion  may  seem  startling  to  the  reader,  but  will,  I  trust,  appear  somewhat  less 
so,  if  he  have  the  patience  to  read  this  volume  to  the  end.  He  will  find  that  Romanesque  sculp¬ 
tors  changed  their  manner,  and  their  geographical  position,  with  extraordinary,  and  hitherto 
unexpected  facility  and  frequency.  He  will  also  find  how  isolated  and  individual  these  works 
are,  and  that  their  similarities  can  not  be  explained  by  saying  that  both  are  merely  crude.  It 
is  true  that  I  do  not  know  of  any  other  example  of  a  sculptor  in  stone  who  also  worked  in  bone 
or  ivory.  There  is,  however,  no  reason  why  the  same  artist  might  not  have  used  both  mediums. 


26  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

since  the  St.-Gilles  frieze  is  not  earlier  than  about  1140,  it  is  evident 
that  the  lower  frieze  at  Selles,  as  well  as  the  upper,  must  be  later 
than  1140.  We  may  then  with  considerable  confidence  conclude 
that  both  were  executed  for  the  church  rebuilt  after  1 145.  Once  again 
the  documents  seem  more  reliable  than  archaeological  theory. 

But  it  will  be  objected  that  the  uppermost  figure  to  the  left  of  the 
window  above  at  Selles  (Ill.  1074)  recalls  the  mysterious  reliefs  of 
La  Celle-Bruere  (Ill.  1469,  1470) ;  and  these  are  considered  by  ortho¬ 
dox  archaeology  to  be  older  fragments  re-employed  in  the  construc¬ 
tion  of  the  church  about  the  middle  of  the  XII  century,  hence  much 
earlier  in  date. 

Here  again,  however,  archaeological  theory  seems  to  have  led  a 
great  scholar  into  error.  The  reliefs  of  La  Celle-Bruere  are  not  older 
than  the  facade  in  which  they  are  employed.  If  we  compare  the 
facial  types  in  the  finished  relief  (Ill.  1469)  with  that  of  the  Cain  in 
the  Nifnes  frieze  (Ill.  1383),  we  shall  be  convinced  that  the  two  are 
not  only  contemporary,  but  very  closely  related.  La  Celle-Bruere 
seems,  in  fact,  an  evident  copy.  Now  the  frieze  of  Nimes  can  not  be 
earlier  than  about  1150.  The  relief  of  La  Celle-Bruere  may  be 
slightly  later.  It  was  doubtless  executed  for  the  new  church  which, 
as  M.  Lefevre-Pontalis  has  so  beautifully  shown,  was  erected  at  pre¬ 
cisely  this  time. 

The  resemblance  of  the  reliefs  at  Selles  to  those  of  La  Celle- 
Bruere  is  therefore  only  one  more  proof  that  the  sculptures  of  Selles 
date  from  the  fourth  decade  of  the  XII  century. 

Let  us  now  return  to  the  study  of  the  sculptures  of  Dax,  with  the 
certainty  that  Selles  is  a  monument  of  about  the  middle  of  the  XII 
century.  The  analogy  we  have  remarked  between  these  two  series  of 
reliefs,  representing  scenes  from  the  Passion,  and  inserted  in  the  ex¬ 
terior  of  the  apse,  would  therefore  argue  a  late  date  for  Dax. 

Another  indication  in  the  same  direction  is  afforded  by  the  fact 
that  the  facial  types  of  the  Dax  reliefs  (Ill.  330-332)  show  the  closest 
analogy  with  those  of  Santo  Domingo  de  Silos  (Ill.  667-673)  which 
we  shall  find  date  from  the  last  quarter  of  the  XI  century.  More- 


THE  ELEVENTH  CENTURY 


27 


over,  the  folds  of  the  tablecloth  in  the  Dax  Last  Supper  (Ill.  331)  are 
very  like  those  of  the  skirts  of  the  Christ  at  St.-Amour  (Ill.  106),  a 
work  which  is  certainly  of  the  XII  century. 

There  is,  however,  even  more  conclusive  proof.  In  the  apse  of  St.- 
Paul  of  Dax,  below  the  frieze,  are  sculptured  capitals,  obviously  not 
second-hand  material,  but  made  for  the  position  they  now  occupy. 
Now  in  one  of  these  capitals  we  recognize  the  hand  of  the  sculptor 
who  made  the  reliefs  we  have  been  studying.  Doubt  is  no  longer 
possible.  The  artist  who  carved  the  second  set  of  reliefs  (Ill.  330-332) 
worked  upon  the  architecture  of  the  apse,  which  is  obviously  and 
admittedly  a  monument  of  the  first  third  of  the  XII  century.  The 
reliefs  are  not  older  fragments  re-employed,  but  were  made  for  their 
present  position.  Although  so  different  in  style,  the  two  sets,  like  the 
analogous  reliefs  at  Selles,  are  contemporary  with  each  other  as  well 
as  with  the  building  which  they  adorn. 

Moreover,  we  notice  that  the  capitals,  one  of  which  is  by  the 
sculptor  of  the  second  set  of  reliefs,  are  similar  to,  and  obviously 
contemporary  with,  those  of  La  Sauve  Majeure  (Ill.  333,  334).  Now 
La  Sauve  Majeure  was  not  founded  until  1079,^  and  the  existing  ruins 
are  of  the  second  quarter  of  the  XII  century. 

From  all  this  we  may  safely  conclude  that  the  sculptures  of  St.- 
Paul  near  Dax,  far  from  being  fragments  of  the  X  century  re¬ 
employed,  were  made  for  their  present  position  about  1120. 

Now  that  the  ground  is  cleared  of  these  monuments  of  the  XII 
century,  which  have  been  masquerading  as  pre-Romanesque,  let  us 
return  to  the  study  of  St.-Genis,  and  attempt  to  trace  the  drift  of 
artistic  currents  in  this  surely  dated  monument  of  1020. 

The  most  striking,  and  on  the  whole  probably  most  significant 
group  of  analogies  offered  by  St.-Genis  are  with  the  art  of  the  Orient. 
In  the  top-shaped  head,  the  low  and  flat  relief,  the  work  at  St.-Genis 
recalls  Achthamar.^  The  upper  wings  of  the  seraphim  are  crossed  in 
the  two  sculptures  in  precisely  the  same  manner.  The  acanthus 

^  Mortet,  258. 

2  Illustrated  by  Strzygowski,  Armenier,  289. 


28  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

leaves  of  St.-Genis  (Ill.  513)  and  St.-Andre  (Ill.  515)  are  obviously 
of  Byzantine  type.^ 

On  the  other  hand,  St.-Genis  shows  points  of  contact  with  monu¬ 
ments  of  the  West.  Some  of  these  are  themselves  already  under 
Byzantine  tradition,  so  that  the  possibility  presents  itself  that  the 
Eastern  elements  of  St.-Genis  may  not  have  come  directly  from  the 
East,  but  through  some  intermediary  in  the  Occident.  M.  Andre 
Michel  has  remarked  that  the  draperies  and  the  drawing  of  certain 
heads  at  St.-Genis  recall  the  pax  of  Duca  Orso  at  Cividale.^  In  the 
drawing  of  the  eyes  and  head,  and  in  the  types  of  the  angels,  the  St.- 
Genis  relief  resembles  the  lintel  from  S.  Lorenzo  of  Zara,  now  at 
S.  Donato.^  We  have  already  spoken  of  the  analogies  between  St.- 
Genis  (Ill.  513)  and  the  lunette  of  the  cathedral  of  Troia  (Ill.  172). 
There  also  appears  to  be  relationship  between  St.-Genis  and  certain 
ivories  of  the  Ada  group.  The  draperies  of  St.-Genis,  especially  the 
sleeves,  recall  an  ivory-carving  of  the  VII  century,  representing  a 
beardless  Christ  surrounded  by  the  evangelists,  now  in  the  Fitz- 
william  Museum  at  Cambridge.^  Even  more  interesting  are  the 
points  of  contact  with  an  ivory  book-cover,  dating  from  the  IX  or  X 
century,  and  also  belonging  to  the  Ada  group.®  This  ivory  is  now 
preserved  in  the  cathedral  of  Narbonne,  but  as  it  came  there  from  a 
private  collection  in  1850,  it  is  not  certain  how  long  it  has  been  in 
Catalonia.  The  peculiar  double  aureole®  of  St.-Genis  occurs  in  ivories 
of  the  Ada  group  ^  as  well  as  elsewhere.®  In  fact  there  are  many  indi- 


*  In  this  connection,  it  is  interesting  to  remark  that  the  tympanum  from  Egmond,  in  the 
Ryksmuseum  at  Amsterdam,  the  most  primitive  extant  Romanesque  sculpture  in  Holland,  has 
a  Greek  inscription  (Illustration  in  Ligte'nberg,  Tafel  I). 

^  Illustration  in  Fogolari,  51. 

®  Illustrated  by  Gurlitt,  70. 

^Illustrated  by  Goldschmidt,  I,  No.  7.  ^  Ibid.,  No.  31. 

®  This  motive  perhaps  originated,  as  Mr.  Walter  S.  Cook  has  suggested,  in  the  sphere  upon 
which  Christ  is  often  seated  in  early  iconographic  representations,  as  e.g.  the  mosaic  at  S.  Lor- 
renzo  f.  1.  m.  at  Rome.  This  sphere  seems  to  have  been  enlarged  to  form  a  lower  lobe  in  out¬ 
line  to  the  aureole ;  then  this  two  lobed  outline  was  retained  when  the  sphere  was  omitted. 

^  See  the  Majestas  Domini  of  the  Kaiser  Friederich  Museum  at  Berlin,  illustrated  by  Gold¬ 
schmidt,  I,  No.  23,  a  work  assigned  to  the  IX  or  X  century. 

*  E.g.  an  ivory  of  the  Hessisches  Landmuseum,  Darmstadt,  of  the  school  of  Cologne,  c.  1000, 
illustrated  by  Goldschmidt,  II,  No.  72;  in  one  of  the  second  half  of  the  XI  century  in  the  Brit- 


THE  ELEVENTH  CENTURY 


29 


cations  that  the  early  art  of  Catalonia  underwent  a  strong  German 
influence.  The  draperies  of  Catalan  manuscripts,  such  as,  for  ex¬ 
ample  the  X  century  Bible  of  Roda,^  are  thoroughly  German  — 
compare  the  book-cover  of  Kaiser  Arnulf  (887-899)  at  Munich.^ 
It  is  evident  that  Catalan  frescos  and  panel  paintings  of  the  XII  cen¬ 
tury  were  strongly  influenced  by  Othonian  miniatures.  It  is  not  sur¬ 
prising  therefore  that  German  influence  should  be  traceable  at  St.- 
Genis.  It  is  less  easy  to  account  for  the  fact  that  the  drawing  of  the 
eye,  and  the  facial  types  of  St.-Genis  recall  the  frescos  of  the  X  cen¬ 
tury  at  Grotta  dei  Santi  near  Calvi.® 

In  addition  to  these  semi-Byzantine  influences,  it  seems  probable 
that  purely  Western  tradition  entered  to  a  considerable  extent  into 
the  style  of  the  St.-Genis  lintel.  The  analogies  to  which  we  have  al¬ 
ready  called  attention  between  the  Bible  of  Roda  and  the  sculptures 
of  Arles-sur-Tech  would  give  reason  to  believe  that  the  early  sculpture 
of  the  Pyrenees  is  rooted  in  the  local  art  of  Catalonia.  The  horse¬ 
shoe  arches  of  the  lintel  are  a  clear  trace  of  this  influence  at  St.-Genis. 
I  note  moreover  a  certain  resemblance  between  the  lintel  of  St.-Genis 
(Ill.  513)  and  the  Carlovingian  sculpture  at  Charlieu  (Ill.  i).  This  it 
is  true  is  more  apparent  than  real,  and  upon  close  study  narrows 
down  to  a  similar  sleeve  convention,  and  the  use  of  beading.  Much 
more  unexpected  is  the  analogy  shown  by  certain  of  the  larva-like 
figures  standing  under  the  niches  at  St.-Genis,  with  those  carved 
more  than  a  century  later  in  the  cloisters  of  S.  Orso  at  Aosta.^  The 
strangeness  of  the  proportions,  the  peculiar  working  of  the  hair  and 
eyes,  the  use  of  headings,  the  similar  management  of  the  draperies  in 

ish  Museum  of  London,  illustrated  by  Goldschmidt,  II,  No.  119;  in  the  Evangelaire  de  Noail- 
les,  of  the  second  half  of  the  IX  century,  Paris,  Bib.  Nat.  lat.,  323,  illustrated  by  Boinet,  PI. 
CXXXV;  in  the  bible  of  St.-Aubin  of  Angers,  in  the  Bibliotheque  de  la  Ville  at  Angiers,  No.  4, 
X  century,  illustrated  by  Boinet,  PI.  CLII ;  in  the  Bible  of  S.  Callisto  of  the  IX  century,  illus- 
trated  by  Clemen,  63.  The  motive  early  became  characteristic  of  Catalan  art;  it  is  already 
found  in  the  X  century  Bible  of  Roda,  Paris,  Bib.  Nat.  lat.  6,  illustrated  by  Clemen,  335. 

^  Paris,  Bib.  Nat.  lat.  6,  illustrated  by  Clemen,  335-336. 

^  Illustrated  by  Dehio,  II,  ab.  304. 

’  Illustrated  by  Bertaux,  245.  There  is  probably  a  common  Byzantine  influence  behind  all 
these  works. 

*  Illustrated  by  Porter,  Lomb.  Arch.,  IV,  Plate  15,  Fig.  3. 


30  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

these  two  works  can  hardly  be  due  to  chance,  and  are  the  more  puz¬ 
zling  that  the  two  mountain  monasteries  are  so  widely  separated 
geographically,  as  well  as  chronologically. 

Whatever  the  explanation  of  this  analogy  may  be,  it  seems  clear 
that  the  style  of  St.-Genis  shows  a  local  tradition  strongly  under  the 
influence  of  Byzantine  monuments,  and  probably  also  adjected  by 
some  such  German  ivory  as  that  which  now  exists  in  the  cathedral 
of  Narbonne. 

It  is  worthy  of  remark  that  the  three  monuments  which  represent 
for  us  the  school  of  the  first  half  of  the  XI  century  in  the  eastern 
Pyrenees  are  all  in  the  churches  of  Benedictine  abbeys.  It  was  only 
at  a  later  period  that  Arles-sur~Tech,  with  which  St.-Andre  was 
united,  was  given  to  Moissac,  and  thus  became  Cluniac.  In  the  first 
half  of  the  XI  century  all  three  monasteries  were  of  the  pure  Bene¬ 
dictine  order,  and  thus  in  close  ecclesiastical  relationship,  as  well  as 
geographical  proximity. 

Since  Cluny  was  the  child  of  the  Benedictine  order,  it  is  not  sur¬ 
prising  to  find  that  important  characteristics  of  Burgundian  sculp¬ 
ture  are  foreshadowed  at  St.-Genis.  The  motive  of  angels  holding  an 
aureole  with  the  figure  of  Christ  was  assuredly  not  new  in  sculpture ; 
it  is  found  for  example  in  the  paliotio  of  Pemmore  at  Cividale.’-  It 
was,  nevertheless,  destined  to  become  a  favourite  theme  of  the 
Cluniac  school.  The  violent  movement  of  the  angels  of  St.-Genis 
foreshadows  the  superb  angels  supporting  the  aureoles  of  Burgundian 
tympana  likeCharlieu  (Ill.  4).  The  draperies  of  St.-Genis  in  their  simple 
overlapping  broad  folds,  cut  like  those  of  Chinese  statues  of  the  Tang 
dynasty,  and  in  their  mannered  spirals  and  whirls  are  strangely  like 
the  types  of  drapery  consecrated  by  the  Burgundian  style.  The  mo¬ 
tive  of  a  lintel  decorated  with  figures  standing  under  the  arches  of  a 
blind  arcade  became  characteristically  Burgundian.  From  all  this  we 
gather  another  proof,  were  any  needed,  of  how  closely  Cluniac  art 
depends  upon  Benedictine  art.^ 

By  far  the  most  significant  fact  about  the  XI  century  sculptures  of 

*  Illustration  in  Fogolari,  47.  ^  See  below,  p.  87. 


THE  ELEVENTH  CENTURY 


31 


the  eastern  Pyrenees  is,  however,  their  existence.  Was  it  only  In  a 
remote  mountain  valley  that  sculpture  flourished  at  this  period  In 
Europe  ? 

Such  Is  no  doubt  the  Impression  given  by  the  histories  of  mediaeval 
sculpture.  A  little  reflection,  however,  suffices  to  bring  conviction 
that  the  case  was  far  otherwise. 

Wackernagel  has  made  a  most  valuable  study  of  certain  pulpits  in 
Apulia.  That  at  Canosa,  signed  by  Acceptus,  had  long  been  known, 
and  assigned  on  its  style  to  the  end  of  the  XI  century.  Wackernagel 
discovered  fragments  of  other  pulpits,  obviously  by  the  same  hand, 
at  Siponto  and  Monte  S.  Angelo.  The  Siponto  pulpit  bore  an  in¬ 
scription  with  the  name  of  Leo,  doubtless  the  archbishop  of  Siponto, 
who  is  known  to  have  flourished  about  1040;  and  the  Monte  S. 
Angelo  pulpit  bore  the  signature  of  Acceptus  and  the  date  1041. 
Doubt  Is  therefore  not  possible  :  in  this  remarkable  series  of  works  we 
have  authentic  monuments  of  the  second  quarter  of  the  XI  century. 

Now  these  pulpits  of  Acceptus  are  all  executed  with  the  utmost 
delicacy,  refinement  and  precision  of  technique.  The  crudeness 
which  orthodox  theory  would  lead  us  to  expect  is  totally  lacking.  The 
later  centuries  produced  in  Apulia  an  art  that  was  different,  but 
never  an  art  which  was  more  beautiful. 

Especially  Is  this  true  of  the  sculptured  human  head  beneath  the 
eagle  at  Monte  S.  Angelo.^  This  already  possesses  the  classic  quality 
which  we  associate  with  the  time  of  Frederic  11.  The  modelling  is 
highly  naturalistic ;  the  proportions  are  carefully  studied,  much  more 
so  than  in,  for  example,  the  reliefs  of  the  ambulatory  at  St.-Sernin 
(Ill.  296-305).  The  hair  and  beard  are  executed  with  an  effectiveness 
that  would  do  credit  to  a  Greek  artist  of  the  V  century  b.c.  If  the 
planes  are  reduced  to  the  lowest  terms,  they  are  still  used  effectively, 
and  with  an  understanding  of  light  and  shade.  The  head  is  individ¬ 
ualized,  and  full  of  character. 

The  eagles  of  Acceptus^  give  us  an  equally  high  idea  of  his  art. 

*  Illustrated  by  Wackernagel,  Tafel  II,  d. 

^Ibid.,  Tafel  I,  b:  Tafel  II,  d. 


32  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

Like  everything  which  he  does,  they  are  extremely  voulus.  He  pro¬ 
duces  the  effect  he  desires  with  unerring  sureness  of  touch.  The 
characterful  heads  almost  make  us  think  of  the  “Pien  Luan”  of  the 
Freer  Collection;  the  heraldic  outlines,  the  splendidly  mannered 
convention  for  the  feathers  are  emotional.  Even  such  a  detail  as  the 
claws,  in  the  Monte  S.  Angelo  pulpit,  is  carved  with  a  feeling  for 
values  not  unworthy  of  Rodin. 

The  work  of  Acceptus  shows  then,  none  of  the  crudeness  of  St.- 
Genis.  It  is  even  much  finer  than  the  contemporary  sculpture  at 
Arles-sur-Tech.  Nor  is  it  surprising  that  the  rich  plain  of  Italy 
should  produce  a  more  refined  art  than  a  valley  of  the  Pyrenees. 

Apulia  lies,  however,  far  to  the  south,  in  a  region  peculiarly  ex¬ 
posed  to  Byzantine  influences.  Did  stone  sculpture  in  northern 
Europe  attain  at  this  period  the  same  high  merit  ? 

Fortunately  it  is  easy  to  give  an  answer.  In  the  museum  of  Mar¬ 
seille  is  preserved  the  tomb  of  St.  Isarne  (Ill.  1278),  which  comes  from 
the  crypt  ^  of  the  abbey  of  St.-Victor,  of  which  it  is  known  that  the 
church  was  consecrated  in  1040.^  From  the  epitaph  we  learn  that 
St.  Isarne  died  in  1048.^  His  tomb-stone  (Ill.  1278)  which  was  cer- 

^  Laurin,  25. 

*  Ibid.,  34.  The  existing  church  is  not  all  of  one  period,  but  has  been,  nevertheless,  dated  too 
late.  This  is  not  the  place  to  enter  into  the  long  technical  discussion  involved  by  consideration 
of  this  question.  I  shall  only  observe  that  a  capital  of  the  crypt  of  St.-Lazare,  conceded  to  date 
from  1040,  is  sculptured  with  a  superbly  expressive  head. 

3  ■‘•OBIIT  ANNO  MXLVIII  INDIC  .....  AEPACTA  ..... 

XP  SACRA  VIRI  CLARI  SVNT  HIC  SITA  PATRIS  ISARNI : 

MEBRA  SVIS  STVDIIS  GLORIFICATA  PUS : 

QVAE  FELIX  VEGETANS  ANIMA  PROVEXIT  AD  ALTA 
MORIB’  EGREGIIS  PACIFICISQ’  ANIMIS 
NA  REDIMITVS  ERAT  HIC  VIRTVTIS  SPECIEBVS : 

VIR  DNI  CVNCTIS  P[RO]  QVIB’  EST  HILARIS : 

QVAE  FECIT  DOCVIT  ABBAS  PIVS  ATQ’  BEATVS  •. 

DISCIPVLOSQ’  SVOS  COMPVLIT  ESSE  PIOS  •.  _ 

SIC  VIVENS  TENVIT  REGIM  SED  CLAVDERE  LIM : 

COMPVLSVS  VITE  EST  ACRITER  MISERE-. 

REXIT  BIS  DENIS  SEPTEMQ’  FIDELS  ANNIS : 

COMISSVQ’  SIBI  DVLCE  GREGEM  DNI 
RESPVIT  OCTOBRIS  TRAS  OCTAVO  KALENDAS : 

ET  CEPIT  RVTILI  REGNA  SVBIRE  POLI ; 

CERNE  P[RAE|  COR  QVE  LEX  HOMINI  NOXA  P(RO)TOPLASTI 

•5-  IN  ME  DEFVNCTO  LECTOR  INEST  MISERO 

SICQ’  GEMENS  CORDE  +  DIC  DIC  DEVS  HVIC  MISERE  AM : 


THE  ELEVENTH  CENTURY 


33 


tainly  sculptured  soon  afterwards  shows  the  qualities  that  we  are 
already  coming  to  recognize  as  characteristic  of  the  XI  century.  The 
face  is  exceedingly  realistic,  and  finely  modelled.  It  impresses  one  as 
an  accurate  and  highly  expressive  portrait  of  the  deceased.  The  long, 
drooping  cheeks,  the  strong  nose,  the  eyes  stern  even  in  death  are  full 
of  character.  If  the  draperies  about  the  shoulders  are  executed  in  a 
somewhat  schematized  fashion,  those  about  the  feet  are  finely  ex¬ 
pressive.  The  feet  themselves  are  sensitively  modelled.  The  monu¬ 
ment  possesses  a  character  of  austerity  and  grandeur  far  surpassing 
the  attainments  of  the  XIII  century,  and  which  it  would  be  difficult 
to  parallel  in  the  XII  century. 

The  same  mastery  of  form,  the  same  sense  of  beauty  is  shown  in 
other  stone  sculptures  of  the  XI  century.  The  reliefs  of  the  portal  of 
St.  Emmeran  at  Regensburg  (Ratisbon)  in  Germany  (Ill.  1279-1282) 
are  dated  between  1049-1064  by  an  inscription.^  Again  we  have 
stone  sculptures  full  of  dignity  and  power.  The  long  face  and  the 
curls  of  the  St.  Emmeran  recall  those  of  St.  Isarne,  but  the  hair  con¬ 
vention  of  the  Christ  is  more  akin  to  that  of  Acceptus’  head  at 
Monte  S.  Angelo.  The  draperies  are  adequately  rendered,  sometimes 
by  parallel  fine  lines  which  seem  copied  from  a  miniature,  but  also  by 
heavy  plastic  folds,  showing  already  quite  the  character  of  the  XII 
century.  We  are  here  far  from  the  painter’s  technique  of  Arles-sur- 
Tech  (Ill.  518);  the  Sl  Emmeran  (Ill.  I2'8i)  shows  a  strong  feeling 
for  the  third  dimension  that  fairly  foreshadows  Giotto  in  its  use  of 
the  background  arch  to  throw  the  figure  into  sharper  relief.  When 
the  two  representations  of  the  Deity  at  Regensburg  and  at  Arles  are 
compared  (Ill.  1279  and  Ill.  518)  we  notice  a  certain  general  similar¬ 
ity  of  type  and  posture,  extending  even  to  the  thrones  and  the  posi¬ 
tion  of  the  legs,  but  the  Regensburg  Christ  seems  much  more  accom¬ 
plished.  This  is  perhaps  less  due  to  a  somewhat  later  date  than  to 
closer  proximity  to  the  centres  of  civilization. 

Of  the  tomb  of  St.-Front  at  Perigueux,  sculptured  in  1077  by  a 
certain  Guinamundus,  a  Cluniac  monk  of  La  Chaise  Dieu,  nothing 
1  ABBA  REGINVVARDVS  HOC  FORE  IVSSIT  OPVS 


34  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

remains ;  we  have  only  the  brief  description  in  the  Pilgrims’  Guide : 
Cuius  sepulchrum  cum  nullis  aliis  Sanctorum  sepulchris  consimile  est^ 
rotundum  tamen,  ut  Dominicum  sepulchrum^  studiosissime  fit^  et 
cuncta  caeterorum  Sanctorum  sepulchra  pulchritudine  miri  operis 
excellit.  When  we  consider  the  high  merit  of  monuments  like  Santi¬ 
ago  and  Moissac  seen  by  the  author  of  this  description,  we  can  only 
conclude  from  his  praise  that  this  tomb  of  1077  was  far  from  crude. 

It  has  been  the  custom  of  archaeologists,  in  dealing  with  the  his¬ 
tory  of  mediaeval  sculpture  at  this  period,  to  separate  works  in  stone 
from  works  in  metal,  and  consider  the  latter  a  “  minor  art  ”  which 
may  conveniently  be  left  out  of  consideration.  Such  an  arbitrary 
division  has  made  it  possible  to  keep  alive  a  little  longer  the  dogma 
that  early  sculpture  is  crude.  It  does  not,  however,  seem  conducive 
to  forming  an  accurate  conception  of  XI  century  art.  Sculpture  in 
metal  is  not  essentially  different  from  sculpture  in  stone.  There  is  no 
reason  to  suppose  that  a  knowledge  of  form  which  could  be  expressed 
in  one  medium  could  not  be  expressed  also  in  the  other.  We  have 
already  found  abundant  evidence  that  the  XI  century  was  master  of 
its  chisel.  Works  in  metal  can  therefore  be  most  instructive  in  in¬ 
forming  us  of  the  taste  and  artistic  accomplishment  of  the  time. 

The  bronze  doors  of  Hildesheim  are  familiar  to  everyone.  They 
are  indeed  a  supreme  masterpiece.  The  composition  is  satisfying; 
the  drawing  masterly ;  the  execution  impeccable.  In  the  long  list  of 
bronze  doors  made  throughout  Germany  and  Italy  in  the  centuries 
that  followed,  there  is,  with  the  single  exception  of  Monte  S.  Angelo 
—  also  a  work  of  the  XI  century  —  none  comparable.  Now  these 
bronze  doors  are  dated  101 5  by  an  inscription.^  The  appearance  of 
so  perfect  a  work  at  this  period  has  startled  historians  of  art,  even 
though  the  matter  was  toned  down  by  classing  the  doors  as  “  minor 
art.”  Yet  there  is  nothing  in  these  monuments,  splendid  as  they  are, 
which  is  not  in  entire  accord  with  the  time  in  which  they  were  pro¬ 
duced.  They  are  merely  the  translation  into  bronze  of  forms  long 

1  AN  DDM  INC  MXV|B  EP  DIVE  MEM  HAS  VALVAS  FVSILES 

IN  FACIE  ANGELICI  TEPLI  OB  MONIMT  SVI  FEC  SVSPENDI 


THE  ELEVENTH  CENTURY 


35 


familiar  to  German  artists.  The  composition  must  be  inspired  by 
some  miniatured  Bible,  like  that  of  Bamberg.^  The  technical  execu¬ 
tion  —  by  which  I  mean  the  drawing,  facial  types,  drapery  folds  — 
recalls  the  golden  book-cover  of  Kaiser  Arnulf  (887-899),^  now  in  the 
Munich  library,  but  coming  from  St.  Emmeran  at  Regensburg. 

The  bronze  column  of  Hildesheim  was  executed  before  1022.^  It 
served  as  a  paschal  candelabrum ;  and  there  can  be  little  doubt  that 
it  was  inspired  neither  by  the  spiral  columns  of  Trajan  and  Marcus 
Aurelius  at  Rome,  nor  yet  by  those  others  of  Theodosius  and  Arca- 
dius  that  once  existed  at  Constantinople,^  but  by  one  of  the  destroyed 
metal  paschal  candelabra  of  the  Roman  churches.  The  style  is,  how¬ 
ever,  purely  German,  and  closely  related  to  that  of  the  bronze  doors. 

It  is  not  only  at  Hildesheim  that  are  found  admirable  works  in 
metal  executed  in  the  XI  century.  The  altar  (983-1002)  and  ambo 
(1002-1024)  at  Aachen,  the  statue  of  Ste.  Foy  at  Conques  (anterior 
to  1010)  all  bear  witness  to  the  perfection  of  this  art.® 

The  Area  Santa  of  Oviedo,  although  unknown,  or  nearly  so,  to 
historians  of  art,  is  in  some  ways  as  epoch-marking  a  monument  as 
the  doors  of  Hildesheim.  Like  the  doors,  the  Area  (Ill.  656-660) 
enjoys  the  advantage  of  being  surely  dated.  An  inscription,  partly 
destroyed  it  is  true,  but  the  meaning  of  which  can  still  be  deciphered, 
states  that  the  Area  was  the  gift  of  King  Alfonso,  who  can  only  be 
the  sixth  of  that  name  (1072-1109).  In  the  inscription  the  name  of 
the  king’s  “sister  Urraca”  also  occurs.®  Now  we  know  from  a  con¬ 
temporary  document  that  this  monarch  and  his  sister  Urraca  were 

^  Bamberg,  Hofbib.,  A.  I.  5.  Illustrated  by  Boinet,  PI.  XXIX.  Compare  especially  the 
scenes  of  God  reproaching  Adam  and  Eve,  and  of  God  giving  Eve  to  Adam.  This  manuscript 
dates  from  the  second  quarter  of  the  IX  century. 

^  Illustrated  by  Dehio,  ab.  304. 

^  For  a  study  of  the  date,  see  the  admirable  monograph  by  Dibelius,  103  f. 

^  Erected  in  386  and  403  respectively.  See  Fondation  Piot,  1895,  II,  99. 

®  Cf.  this  text ;  Fecit  (Gauzlin,  abbot  of  Fleury  c.  1026)  et  analogium  hispanico  metallo 
compactum,  diebus  utendum  feriarum,  fusoria  industria  solidatam,  quatuor  vallaverat 
leunculorum  pulchritudine ;  desuper  columnam,  trium  cubitorum  habentem  altitudinem, 
fusili  arte  fabricatam,  atque’undique  vario  opere  politam,  in  cujus  centro  volantis  aquilae 
radiabat  similitudo  (Vie  de  Gauzlin,  ed.  Delisle,  39-40).  Compare  also  the  descriptions  of  the 
altar-frontals  of  St.-Gilles  and  Santiago  in  the  Pilgrims'  Guide  (ed.  Fita). 

« Vigil,  1 5. 


36  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

present  at  the  invention  of  the  relics  in  1075.^  We  can  only  conclude 
that  this  invention  was  the  occasion  for  the  gift  of  the  Area. 

The  Area  is  unquestionably  of  Spanish  workmanship  —  the  many 
analogies,  especially  of  the  cover  with  the  Area  of  San  Millan  de  la 
Cogolla  (Ill.  638-649)  are  obvious.  However,  the  reliefs  show  another 
and  very  different  influence.  It  is  that  of  the  bronze  doors  of  Hilde- 
sheim,  or  of  some  of  the  works  of  the  German  goldsmiths,  with 
which  these  are  related.  German  Othonian  models  left  an  indelible 
impress  upon  the  sculpture  of  Europe  during  the  XI  and  XII  cen¬ 
turies. 

The  engraved  cover  of  the  Area  Santa  is  derived  from  a  southern 
French  or  Spanish  manuscript.  The  Crucifixion  ^  is  very  close  to 
that  of  an  XI  century  manuscript  of  Limoges.® 

These  monuments  of  the  first  three  quarters  of  the  XI  century 
which  we  have  examined  are  doubtless  few  in  number,  but  still 
sufficient  to  enable  us  to  perceive,  first  that  the  plastic  art  of  the  XI 
century  was  different  from  that  of  the  XII  century,  but  not  neces¬ 
sarily  inferior  either  in  conception  or  in  execution ;  and  secondly  that 
the  modern  archaeological  dogma,  that  the  sculpture  of  the  XI  cen¬ 
tury  was  crude  and  barbarous,  is  a  serious  and  fundamental  error. 

*  Vigil,  76.  ^Mas  photograph,  C.  25255. 

^Bib.  Nat.  latin  11550.  Compare  also  the  Oviedo  silver  book-cover.  Mas  photograph, 
C.  25261. 


Ill 

EARLY  SPANISH  IVORIES 


The  school  of  ivory-carving  which  grew  up  in  Spain  during  the  XI 
century  throws  unexpected  light  upon  the  knowledge  of  form  pos¬ 
sessed  by  artists  in  this  period  which  modern  archaeologists  and 
historians  of  art  have  so  strangely  neglected.  Although  the  literature 
dealing  with  early  Spanish  ivories  is  considerable,  the  historical 
significance  of  this  art  does  not  appear  to  have  been  appreciated. 

One  of  the  oldest  and  most  important  monuments  extant  is 
assuredly  the  Area  of  San  Millan  de  la  Cogolla  (Ill.  638-649).  I  have 
not  been  able  to  obtain  access  to  the  jealously  secreted  ivories  them¬ 
selves,  but  the  photographs  ^  give  a  sufficient  idea  of  their  character. 

The  relics  of  San  Millan  were  discovered  in  1030.  It  is  an  ancient 
tradition  that  they  were  translated  in  1033  in  the  presence  of  Don 
Sancho  el  Mayor,  king  of  Navarre,  and  that  the  Area  which  still 
in  part  survives  was  given  by  that  king  on  that  occasion. ^  Don 
Emmanuel  G6mez-Moreno  ^  and  Senor  Sentenach,  however,  refer 
the  Area  to  a  translation  by  Garcia  Sanchez  in  1053.'^  In  any  event 
it  may  safely  be  considered  a  monument  at  least  as  early  as  the  third 
quarter  of  the  XI  century. 

Compared  with  the  crucifix  of  San  Isidoro  of  Leon,  now  in  the 
Madrid  Museo  Arqueologico  (Ill.  654,  655),  and  which  is  a  surely 
dated  monument  of  1063,  the  ivories  of  San  Millan  appear  much 
cruder  and  more  primitive;  it  is  tempting  to  consider  them  earlier. 
They  impress  one,  too,  as  being  earlier  than  the  book-cover  of  Jaca, 
now  in  the  Metropolitan  Museum  at  New  York  (Ill.  519),  and  which 
was  given  by  the  queen  Felicia,  who  died  in  1085. 

^  I  owe  these  photographs  to  the  kindness  of  Don  Emmanuel  Gomez-Moreno. 

Debenga,  296.  ^  295. 

*  Don  Emmanuel  Gomez-Moreno  thinks  the  Area  may  have  been  executed  as  late  as  c.  1076. 


38  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

The  Area  of  San  Millan  was  in  part  destroyed  by  the  French  under 
Napoleon.  Among  the  portions  lost  at  this  time  was  an  inscription 
recording  the  names  of  the  artists  who  executed  the  ivories.  These 
were  a  certain  Enel  .  .  .  and  Rodolphus,  his  son.  This  name  Rodol- 
phus  suggests  a  Germanic  origin. 

The  style  of  the  ivories  also  seems  to  show  German  influence.  So 
much  is  this  the  case,  that  no  less  an  authority  than  Graeven  ^  has 
ascribed  the  panel  at  Florence  (Ill.  650)  which  (although  the  fact 
appears  never  to  have  been  recognized)  is  certainly  of  the  same 
school  as  the  San  Millan  Area,  indeed,  even  by  the  same  hand  or 
hands,  to  the  Rhenish  school  of  the  XI  or  XII  century.  The  ascrip¬ 
tion  is  without  doubt  erroneous,  the  panel  in  question  must  be 
Spanish ;  but  that  so  great  a  connoisseur  should  have  mistaken  it  for 
a  German  work  is  eloquent  proof  of  the  German  influences  which  are 
shown  by  the  style.  Goldschmidt  ^  has  recognized  the  German  char¬ 
acter  of  the  New  York  crucifix  (Ill.  710)  which  is  a  later  work  of  this 
same  school.  A  comparison  between  the  figure  to  the  left  within  the 
house  in  the  San  Millan  relief  of  the  Devil  exorcised  from  the  House 
of  Parpalinense  (Ill.  644),  and  the  Christ  of  the  Doubting  Thomas 
in  the  Figdor  collection  at  Vienna,  the  latter  a  work  of  the  Echter- 
nach  master  of  about  990,®  will  leave  us  in  no  doubt  of  the  Teutonic 
derivation  of  the  San  Millan  ivories. 

The  influences  between  Spain  and  Germany  did  not  flow  in  only 
one  direction.  It  is  certain  that  German  ivories  of  the  XII  century 
show  imitation  of  the  art  of  the  pilgrimages. 

While  the  San  Millan  Area  shows  German  influence,  it  is  neverthe¬ 
less  a  work  essentially  Spanish  in  character.  The  execution  is  quite 
different  from  that  of  the  German  ivories.  The  horse-shoe  and 
trefoiled  arches  are  a  markedly  Spanish  (ultimately  Moorish) 
characteristic. 

A  series  of  ivory  reliefs  in  the  Museo  Arqueologico  at  Madrid  show 
evident  affinity  of  style  with  the  San  Millan  Area.  Together  with 


*  //a/.,  No.  31. 

®  Illustrated  by  Goldschmidt,  II,  No.  24. 


2  II,  No.  27. 


EARLY  SPANISH  IVORIES 


39 


fragments  from  Arab  boxes  —  one  of  which  bears  an  inscription 
datable  1043-1077  —  they  have  been  mounted  to  form  a  casket 
(Ill.  651-653);  the  whole  comes  from  San  Isidoro  of  Leon.  It  is 
natural  to  conjecture  that  these  reliefs,  representing  the  Beatitudes, 
originally  formed  one  of  the  six  ivory  boxes  given  to  San  Isidoro  by 
Don  Fernando  I  (1037-1065).^ 

Related  in  style  to  the  San  Millan  Area,  but  inferior  in  quality,  is  a 
little  relief  in  the  Metropolitan  Museum  at  New  York.^ 

On  the  other  hand,  a  very  different,  and  much  more  finished  style 
appears  in  the  great  crucifix  (Ill.  654,  655),  which  also  comes  from 
San  Isidoro  of  Leon,  and  which  is  now  also  in  the  Museo  Arqueo- 
logico  at  Madrid.  This  crucifix  has  the  advantage  of  being  incon¬ 
testably  dated :  at  the  foot  of  the  cross  is  the  inscription  FERDI- 
NANDVS  REX  SANCIA  REGINA;  it  is  therefore  beyond  any 
question  the  very  crucifix  which  it  is  known  was  presented  by  these 
sovereigns  to  San  Isidoro  in  1063.^  The  style  of  this  remarkable  work 
singularly  anticipates  the  stone  sculpture  of  the  XII  century.  On 
the  other  hand  it  differs  notably  from  that  of  the  group  of  ivories  we 
have  just  been  studying.  So  sharp  indeed  is  the  change  of  manner 
that  I  can  detect  but  one  peculiarity  common  to  both  —  it  is  the 
custom,  later  taken  over  by  the  sculptors  in  stone,  of  hollowing  out 
the  pupil  of  the  eye,  and  inlaying  it  with  another  material.  I  can  not 
agree  with  those  authors  who  think  that  the  figure  of  Christ  in  the 
Madrid  crucifix  is  inferior  in  execution  to  the  ornamental  work  upon 
the  cross.  This  face  seems  to  me  indeed  to  be  one  of  the  notable 
achievements  of  mediaeval  art.  I  should  not,  however,  be  surprised 
if  it  were  by  a  different  hand  from  the  one  that  executed  the  cross, 
and  perhaps  the  body  of  the  Christ.  The  hand  of  this  artist  reap¬ 
pears,  Mr.  Breck  believes,  in  the  book-cover  of  the  Metropolitan 
Museum  in  New  York  (Ill.  665).  The  ornamental  carving,  the 
draperies,  the  hands  and  the  feet  are  certainly  identical  in  the  two 

^  Jose  Amador,  in  Museo,  II,  545.  The  arches  with  spiral  colonnettes  of  this  ivory  are  like 
those  on  the  pilasters  of  the  west  fagade  of  Chartres. 

*  Illustrated  by  Breck,  218.  Accession  number  17. 190.142. 

®  Espaha  Sagrada,  XXXVI,  Appendix,  p.  clxxxix. 


40  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

works.  The  faces  of  the  New  York  book-cover  are,  however,  very 
inferior  to  those  of  the  Madrid  Christ ;  nor  is  the  quality  of  even  the 
decorative  parts  so  fine. 

The  excellent  technique  of  the  Madrid  crucifix,  as  well  as  several 
motives  of  decoration  ^  are  derived  from  Saracenic  models.  There 
can  be  little  doubt  that  the  superlative  excellence  at  times  displayed 
by  Spanish  art  during  the  Romanesque  period  is  due  to  the  inspira¬ 
tion  of  the  highly  finished  and  technically  accomplished  productions 
of  the  Moors.  It  is  Mussulman  influence  which  raised  Mozarabic 
architecture,  the  sculptures  of  Santo  Domingo  de  Silos,  and  the 
ivories  we  have  just  been  studying  to  a  level  equal  with,  if  not 
superior  to,  that  of  the  best  contemporary  work  in  Europe. 

The  Moors  were  accomplished  ivory-carvers,  and  seem  to  have 
anticipated  the  Christian  Spaniards  in  the  field.  At  least  I  know  of 
no  Christian  Spanish  ivory  as  early  as  the  celebrated  casket  of  the 
cathedral  at  Pamplona,  dated  1005  by  an  inscription.^  This  box 
already  stands  on  an  extremely  high  level  of  technical  excellence; 
the  ornamental  work  is  even  better  than  the  figures,  a  fact  easily 
explained  since  Mohammedan  artists  were  rarely  allowed  to  practise 
making  representations  of  the  human  form.  The  same  skilful  execu¬ 
tion  is  characteristic  of  other  Moorish  boxes,  like  the  one  of  the 
Burgos  Museum,  dated  1026,  or  that  from  Palencia,  dated  1049,® 
which  is  now  in  the  Museo  Arqueologico  at  Madrid. 

Another  crucifix  now  at  San  Marcos  of  Leon,  but  coming  from  the 
same  stupendous  treasure  of  San  Isidoro  (Ill.  703)  is  closely  related 
to  the  Madrid  carving.  The  head  is  superior  to  those  of  the  New 
York  ivory,  but  inferior  to  that  of  the  Madrid  crucifix.  The  ancient 
cross  of  the  San  Marcos  crucifix  is  lost.  It  is  known  from  literary 
descriptions  ^  that  there  existed  in  the  treasure  of  San  Isidoro  an 
ivory  crucifix,  with  an  image  and  inscription  referring  to  Doha 

^  See  for  a  study  of  this  question  the  Boletin  de  la  Sociedad  Espahola  de  Excursiones,  XIV, 
1906,  14. 

2  This  casket  has  been  published  many  times  —  among  others,  by  Bertaux,  Exp.  Ret.,  205. 

^  Vives,  36. 

*  Manuel  de  Assas  in  Museo,  I,  209. 


EARLY  SPANISH  IVORIES 


41 

Urraca  (1032-1101).  It  is  tempting  to  conjecture  that  the  Christ  of 
San  Marcos  is  a  part  of  this  crucifix. 

Another  work  closely  related  to  this  group  is  the  ivory-carving 
(Ill.  519)  incorporated  in  a  book-cover  of  silver  filigree  work  now  in 
the  Metropolitan  Museum  of  New  York.^  The  book-cover  formerly 
belonged  to  the  cathedral  at  Jaca.^  At  the  base  of  the  cross  is  the 
inscription  FELICIA  REGINA;  the  ivory  must  therefore  have 
been  given  by  the  wife  of  Sancho  Ramirez ;  and  she  is  known  to  have 
died  in  1085.  The  crucifix  must  consequently  have  been  executed 
before  this  date. 

In  style  the  crucifix  is  related  to  the  group  that  we  have  just  been 
studying,  most  closely  perhaps  to  the  crucifix  at  San  Marcos  (Ill. 
703),  although  it  is  by  no  means  without  points  of  contact  with  the 
Madrid  ivory  (Ill.  654,  655). 

At  San  Millan  de  la  Cogolla  is  preserved  a  second  ivory  reliquary 
(Ill.  661-664),  known  as  the  Area  of  S.  Felices.^  The  style  is  not 
without  relationship  to  that  of  the  Area  of  San  Millan ;  so  much  so 
that  Senor  Sentenach  made  one  Area  out  of  the  two.^  The  style  is 
however  distinctly  different.  The  San  Felices  Area  appears  to  be 
more  advanced ;  the  facial  types  show  points  of  contact  with  those 
of  the  New  York  book-cover.  It  may  very  likely  date  from  the  last 
quarter  of  the  XI  century.^ 

A  crucifix  now  in  the  Metropolitan  Museum  in  New  York  shows 
obvious  relationship  with  this  group  of  ivories  (Ill.  710).  The  cross 
is  modern,  and  the  Christ  has  lost  His  right  arm  since  the  photo¬ 
graph  published  by  Prof.  Goldschmidt  ®  was  made.  The  style  of  this 
figure  shows  analogies  especially  with  that  of  the  New  York  book- 
cover  (Ill.  519),  but  it  is  coarser  and  more  advanced.  Prof.  Gold- 

^  It  has  been  published  by  Mr.  Breck  in  his  illuminating  paper  on  Spanish  Ivories  in  the 
Morgan  Collection  —  a  work  which  is  fundamental  for  the  intelligent  study  of  Spanish  sculp¬ 
ture,  and  indeed  the  only  comprehensive  survey  of  the  subject  which  exists. 

^  De  Leguina,  247. 

^  I  am  indebted  to  Don  Emmanuel  Gomez-Moreno  also  for  the  photographs  of  this  inacces¬ 
sible  monument. 

^Gomez-Moreno,  295. 

5  The  assertion  that  it  dates  from  the  XIII  century  is  unsupported  by  the  slightest  evidence. 

®  II,  No.  27. 


42  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

schmidt  dated  it  about  1200;  Mr.  Breck  put  it  back  fifty  years  to 
1150;  perhaps  a  date  about  1125  would  be  still  more  probable. 

A  further  stylistic  development  along  the  same  lines  is  shown  in 
another  relief  of  the  Metropolitan  Museum  at  New  York,  represent¬ 
ing  the  Journey  to  Emmaus  and  the  Noli  me  tangere  (Ill.  709).  A 
comparison  of  this  ivory  with  the  stone  reliefs  of  apostles  by  Gilbert’s 
assistant  from  St.-Etienne  of  Toulouse  reveals  striking  similarity. 
The  hair  convention  of  the  middle  figure  in  the  Journey  to  Emmaus 
(Ill.  709)  is  similar  to  that  of  one  of  the  Toulouse  apostles  (Ill.  439, 
right-hand  figure) ;  that  of  the  figure  to  the  left  in  the  Journey  to 
Emmaus  (Ill.  709)  and  of  Christ  in  the  Noli  me  tangere  are  similar 
to  that  of  another  of  the  apostles  (Ill.  436).  The  raised  right  hand  of 
the  figure  to  the  right  of  the  Journey  to  Emmaus  (Ill.  709)  is  strik¬ 
ingly  like  that  of  one  of  the  Toulouse  apostles  (Ill.  439,  central 
figure).  The  draperies  of  the  Mary  Magdalen  (Ill.  709)  are  undeni¬ 
ably  similar  to  those  of  the  beardless  apostle  (Ill.  439).  The  facial 
types  are  essentially  the  same  (Ill.  709  and  Ill.  437).  Most  vital  of 
all,  however,  is  the  similarity  of  feeling  that  runs  through  the  two 
works.  Such  coarseness,  such  vulgarity,  such  diabolic  cynicism  could 
not  have  been  twice  invented. 

We  shall  find  reason  to  believe  that  the  Toulouse  apostles  were 
executed  in  the  fifth  decade  of  the  XII  century.  The  question  arises 
whether  the  ivory  is  a  prototype  or  a  derivative.  I  am  inclined  to 
believe  the  former.  While  there  are  many  provable  examples  of 
sculptures  copied  from  ivories  at  this  period,!  know  of  none  of  ivories 
copied  from  sculptures.  The  ivory  seems  throughout  more  vigorous, 
more  archaic.  The  costume  is  of  an  earlier  type.  The  XI  century 
neck-slit  appears  in  two  out  of  the  four  figures  in  the  ivory,  while 
in  the  reliefs  it  has  entirely  disappeared,  except  in  one  figure  (Ill. 
436),  where  it  appears  in  very  modified  form.  The  parted  hair  con¬ 
vention,  while  very  similar  in  the  two  works  (Ill.  709  and  Ill.  437)  is 
at  Toulouse  distinctly  more  naturalistic  and  advanced  than  in  the 
ivory. 

It  therefore  seems  to  me  probable  that  the  ivory  is  earlier  than  the 


EARLY  SPANISH  IVORIES 


43 

relief.  Mr.  Breck  assigned  the  former  to  about  the  middle  of  the  XII 
century;  I  should  be  inclined  to  place  it  before  1140. 

Mr.  Breck  took  the  ivory  to  be  Spanish.  The  analogies  with  the 
Toulouse  apostles  might  seem  to  give  reason  to  question  whether  it 
might  not  rather  have  been  made  in  Toulouse.  This  supposition  is, 
however,  not  necessary.  The  same  plastic  style  prevailed  at  Toulouse 
and  in  northern  Spain.  Our  ivory  closely  resembles  in  style  the  New 
York  crucifix  (Ill.  710)  which  seems  to  be  certainly  Spanish.  The 
composition  of  the  Journey  to  Emmaus  (Ill.  709)  recalls  that  of  the 
same  subject  at  Santo  Domingo  de  Silos  (Ill.  667).  Moreover,  we 
have  seen  that  there  were  certainly  several  ateliers  of  ivory-carving 
in  Spain  during  the  Romanesque  period,  while  I  know  of  no  proof 
that  such  existed  in  Toulouse.  The  hypothesis  that  the  ivory  is 
Spanish  seems  therefore  tenable. 


IV 

SANTO  DOMINGO  DE  SILOS 


The  older  portion  of  the  cloister  of  Santo  Domingo  de  Silos  is  a 
dated  monument  of  the  XI  century. 

The  abbot  Santo  Domingo  died  in  1073,^  and  was  buried  in  the 
cloister,  the  construction  of  which  he  had  begun.  In  1076  the  body 
was  moved,  but  the  epitaph  on  a  capital  (Ill.  666)  remained,  and  still 
remains.  A  cenotaph  was  subsequently  erected  to  mark  the  place 
where  the  body  first  rested. 

From  this  it  follows,  as  an  inevitable  consequence,^  that  the  capital 
with  the  inscription  (Ill.  666)  dates  from  between  1073  and  1076. 
Indeed,  graver,  and  hitherto  unsuspected,  conclusions  follow.  The 
study  of  the  internal  evidence  of  the  cloister  itself  proves,  whatever 
has  been  said  to  the  contrary,  that  the  north  and  east  galleries  and 
the  north  bay  of  the  west  gallery  are  all  substantially  contemporary 
with  each  other,  with  the  capital,  with  the  inscription  and  with  the 
six  reliefs  of  earlier  style  (Ill.  666-673).® 

Whoever  will  compare  the  ear  of  the  harpy  in  the  dated  capital 
(111.  666)  with  the  ear  of  the  Christ  in  the  Deposition  (Ill.  669),  or  the 
hair  conventions  in  the  capital  (Ill.  666)  with  those  in  the  reliefs 
(Ill.  667,  669-673),  will  be  convinced  that  the  two  are  not  only  of 
the  same  period,  but  by  the  same  hand.  The  lettering  of  the  in¬ 
scription  of  1073-1076  (Ill.  666)  is  exactly  like  that  of  the  reliefs 
(Ill.  667, 669-673).  The  sculptured  capital  of  the  cloister  representing 
the  four  and  twenty  elders  (Ill.  668)  is  obviously  by  the  same  hand 
as  the  reliefs  on  one  side,  and  the  dated  capital  on  the  other.  It  is 
incredible  that  such  similar  works  should  be  separated  by  a  period 
of  eighty  years  as  asserted  by  orthodox  archaeology. 

*  Rodrigo,  26. 

^  This  was  first  recognized  by  M.  Bertaux  in  Andre  Michel,  II,  i,  223. 

^  Roulin  has  published  numerous  photographs  of  the  capitals. 


SANTO  DOMINGO  DE  SILOS 


45 


It  may,  indeed,  well  be  that  the  reliefs  are  slightly  later  than  1073- 
1076.  After  the  cloister  had  been  begun,  building  activity  appears 
to  have  been  transferred  to  the  church.  This  was  consecrated  in 
1088.^  Although  an  inscription  implies  that  the  cloister,  too,  was 
dedicated  at  this  time,  it  is  conceivable  that  the  reliefs  may  have 
been  executed  after  this  date.  This  would  bring  them  into  the  last 
fifteen  years  of  the  XI  century. 

The  style  of  the  reliefs  is  in  entire  agreement  with  the  documentary 
evidence  for  date. 

A  striking  peculiarity  of  these  sculptures  is  that  the  reliefs  are 
placed  under  arches.  In  the  relief  of  the  Doubting  Thomas  (Ill.  671), 
which  is  perhaps  the  latest  of  the  series,  the  arch  is  surmounted  by  a 
sort  of  canopy,  sculptured  with  architectural  motives,  and  with 
human  figures  playing  upon  musical  instruments. 

At  first  one  might  be  tempted  to  suppose  that  such  a  canopy  would 
indicate  a  date  later  than  the  XI  century ;  but  it  will  be  remembered 
that  canopies  were  used  in  ivories  and  miniatures  of  the  X  century. ^ 
They  are  also  characteristic  of  the  ivories  of  the  XI  century  in  Spain. 
We  find  them  in  the  Area  of  San  Millan  (Ill.  638),  in  that  of  San 
Felices  (Ill.  661)  and  in  the  Beatitudes  from  San  Isidoro  of  Leon 
(Ill.  651-653).  In  stone  sculpture  the  motive  appears  in  the  reliefs 
of  St.  Emmeran  at  Regensburg  (Ill.  1279,  1281,  1282)  which  as  we 
have  seen  are  dated  1049-1064.  Its  presence  at  Santo  Domingo  de 
Silos  in  the  late  XI  century  is  therefore  entirely  to  be  expected.  The 
only  innovation  is  the  introduction  of  human  figures  into  the  archi¬ 
tecture. 


^  Ferotin,  72. 

^  See  for  example  the  book-cover  of  the  Kaiser  Friederich  Museum  in  Berlin,  illustrated  by 
Goldschmidt,  II,  No.  52,  53.  Canopied  arches  are  characteristic  of  miniatures  of  the  school  of 
Winchester,  with  which  the  Santo  Domingo  reliefs  may  be  suspected  of  being  connected.  Thus 
in  the  Benedictional  of  St.  Aethelwold  at  Chatsworth,  there  appear  over  the  arches  framing 
theminiatures  on  foliosjand  100  canopies  adorned  with  the  representations  of  two  cities, very 
like  the  Jerusalem  and  Bethlehem  of  Roman  mosaics  (illustrated  by  Warner  and  Wilson).  The 
motive  is  somewhat  simplified  in  the  Benedictional  of  Paris,  folio  43r,  illustrated  by  Horn- 
burger,  Tafel  IX.  It  may  have  originated  in  the  ornaments  placed  either  side  of  arches  in  Car- 
olingian  manuscripts,  such  as  the  late  IX  century  Gospel  of  Morienvai,  preserved  at  Noyon 
(it  was  saved  by  evacuation  in  the  war),  and  illustrated  by  Boinet,  PI.  LXXXI. 


46  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

The  placing  of  reliefs  in  arches  is  also  characteristic  of  the  period. 
This  motive  is  of  very  ancient  origin/  and  became  widely  diffused 
through  its  use  on  Early  Christian  sarcophagi.^  From  sculpture 
in  stone  it  passed  into  miniatures^  and  frescos/  and  became 
especially  characteristic  of  the  school  of  Winchester.®  It  was  taken 
over  in  ivory-carvings  —  we  find  it  for  example  in  the  Echternach 
ivory  at  the  Cluny  Museum/  in  the  Ada  group  ivory  of  the  X  cen¬ 
tury  in  the  Bibliotheque  Nationale/  in  an  ivory  of  the  X  century 
at  the  Bargello.®  In  the  XI  century  its  use  in  ivory  carvings  became 
especially  frequent  —  we  find  it  in  a  Byzantine  ivory  of  the  Kaiser 
Friederich  Museum  at  Berlin/  in  another  of  the  British  Museum/® 
and  in  Spain  in  the  Area  of  San  Millan  (Ill.  639,  640,  643,  644,  648), 
in  that  of  San  Felices  (Ill.  664)  in  the  Florence  fragment  (Ill.  650) 
and  in  the  reliefs  of  the  Beatitudes  (Ill.  651-653)  from  San  Isidoro 
at  Leon.  It  is  also  found  in  the  Area  Santa  of  Oviedo  of  1075  (Ill. 
658).  The  motive  was  therefore  very  much  at  home  in  Spain  in  the 
XI  century.  In  stone  sculpture  the  idea  is  found  at  St.-Pierre  de  la 
Citadelle  at  Metz^^ —  in  this  case  the  arch  is  triangular  —  at  Azay- 

^  It  is  found  on  a  Roman  relief  in  the  Museum  of  Sens. 

^  This  motive  found  its  way  into  the  Far  East  —  there  is  an  example  of  it  in  a  stone  stupa  of 
the  Henry  H.  Getty  collection  illustrated  by  A.  Getty  {The  Gods  of  Northern  Buddhism,  Ox¬ 
ford,  Clarendon  Press,  1914.  4to),  PI.  XIII  c.  It  is  also  found  on  a  Coptic  relief  of  the  Cairo 
Museum,  illustrated  by  Bauer  und  Strzygowski,  159,  and  in  wooden  panels  in  the  same  mu¬ 
seum,  dating  from  the  III  to  the  IV  century  (Strzygowski,  Cairo  Cat.  Taf.  VII).  Two  wooden 
consoles  from  Bawit  in  the  Cairo  Museum  (illustrated  by  Strzygowski,  Cairo  Cat.,  Taf.  VII) 
are  decorated  with  figures  of  saints  in  niches,  strongly  recalling  the  cloister  sculptures  of 
Moissac. 

^  It  is  found  in  the  Gospels,  called  of  Charlemagne,  at  Abbeville,  illustrated  by  Boinet,  PI. 
X;  in  the  Gospels  of  the  British  Museum,  Hart.  2788,  of  the  early  IX  century,  illustrated  by 
Boinet,  PI.  XIII ;  in  the  Gospels  of  Lorsch,  at  Rome,  Vatican,  Pal.  lat.  50,  illustrated  by 
Boinet,  PI.  XVII ;  in  the  Gospels  of  St.-Medard  of  Soissons,  Paris,  Bib.  Nat.,  lat.  8850,  illus- 
tratfed  by  Boinet,  PI.  XXI-^JSII;  in  the  Gospels  of  Ada,  at  Treves,  illustrated  by  Boinet, 
PI.  VIII. 

^  In  the  ruins  of  Arab-Djami  at  Constantinople  (Ebersolt,  PI.  XXXIV). 

^  See  the  miniatures  cited  above,  and  the  Benedictiona!  of  St.  Aethelwold,  passim,  illus¬ 
trated  by  Warner  and  Wilson. 

®  Illustrated  by  Goldschmidt,  II,  No.  25. 

^  Illustrated  ibid..  No.  36. 

*  Illustrated  by  Graeven,  36. 

®  Illustrated  by  Millet,  Iconographie,  24. 

Illustrated  by  Graeven,  I,  54. 

“  Illustrated  by  de  Lasteyrie,  42. 


SANTO  DOMINGO  DE  SILOS 


47 


le-Rideau  (Ill.  896),  in  a  relief  of  St. -Mark’s,  assigned  by  Grabelentz 
to  the  XI  century,^  at  St.-Mesme  of  Chinon  (Ill.  897)  —  a  dated 
monument  of  1025,  —  at  St.  Emmeran  of  Regensburg  (Ill.  1279, 
1281,  1282)  —  1049-1064,  and  in  the  tomb  from  Santa  Cruz  de  la 
Serbs  (Ill.  527).  The  motive  is  therefore  characteristic  of  stone 
sculpture  of  the  XI  century. 

On  the  other  hand  its  use  became  rare  after  the  year  1 100.  The 
cloisters  of  Moissac  (Ill.  262-273),  dated  1100,  may  be  taken  as 
marking  the  end  of  the  tradition. ^  After  that  date  the  arch  is  com¬ 
monly  retained  only  in  lintels,  or  in  friezes,  where  similar  figures  are 
repeated  under  a  series  of  arches.®  In  this  particular,  therefore,  the 
sculptures  of  Santo  Domingo  de  Silos  clearly  show  the  style  of  the 
XI  century.^ 

The  motive  of  the  hand  raised,  with  the  palm  turned  outward, 
which  occurs  at  Santo  Domingo  in  the  reliefs  of  Doubting  Thomas 
(Ill.  671)  and  the  Ascension  (Ill.  672)  is  also  consistent  with  an  XI 
century  date.  This  motive,  too,  is  of  ancient,  and  apparently  of 
Eastern  origin,  since  it  is  found  on  two  wooden  consoles  of  the  V 
century  from  Bawit  in  the  Cairo  Museum.®  In  the  Far  East  it  is  of 
frequent  occurrence  from  a  very  early  period,  and  is  familiar  to 
students  of  Oriental  iconography.  It  is  found,  for  example,  to  cite 
one  instance  among  many,  in  a  gilt  bronze  image  of  before  781  be¬ 
longing  to  the  Imperial  Household,  and  exhibited  in  the  Kyoto 

^  Illustrated  by  Ongania,  PI.  279. 

^  Except  that  for  the  sake  of  unity  the  arch  was  repeated  from  the  earlier  in  the  later  reliefs 
of  Santo  Domingo  de  Silos  (Ill.  721). 

^  See  what  is  said  below,  p.  133  f.,  of  the  history  of  the  arched  lintel.  It  is  from  lintels  like 
those  of  Nicold  that  are  derived  the  reliefs  under  arcades  of  the  baptismal  fontof  Hulla  (illus¬ 
trated  by  Roosval,  Taf.  XII). 

^  There  are  a  few  examples  of  the  survival  of  the  arch  motive  into  the  XII  century,  as  in  a 
capital  at  Autun  (Ill.  79),  in  a  capital  of  St.-Benoit-sur-Loire  (Ill.  1416),  in  the  sculptures  of 
La  Daurade  at  Toulouse  (Ill.  471),  at  S.  Vicente  of  Avila  (Ill.  850-851),  in  the  cloister  of 
Ripoll,  at  St.-Gilles  (Ill.  1325),  etc.  In  miniatures  we  find  it  in  a  Syriac  Gospel  of  the  XII  or 
XIII  century,  illustrated  by  Omont,  Fond.  Plot,  XIX,  PI.  IV-IX.  It  is  also  in  a  Beatus  Man¬ 
uscript  of  the  late  XII  century,  published  by  Sentenach,  21 5.  It  is  often  used  in  enamel  work, 
but  always  with  a  row  of  similar  figures,  as  in  the  altar-frontal  from  Santo  Domingo  de  Silos, 
now  in  the  Burgos  Museum,  or  the  reliquary  by  Rogkerus  von  Helmershausen,  of  1100,  illus¬ 
trated  by  Creutz,  19. 

®  Illustrated  by  Strzygowski,  Cairo  Cat.,  Taf.  VII. 


48  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

Exposition.^  In  the  IX  century  the  motive  appears  in  the  Occident, 
in  a  fresco  of  the  lower  church  at  S,  Clemente  of  Rome  and  in  the 
chapel  of  S.  Lorenzo  ai  Sorgenti  di  Volturno.^  In  the  X  century  we 
find  the  motive  in  a  book-cover  of  S.  Marco  at  Venice;^  then  it  ap¬ 
pears  in  miniatures  of  the  school  of  Winchester  ^  with  which  the 
Santo  Domingo  sculptures  show  so  many  affinities.  But  it  is  in  the 
XI  century  that  the  motive  becomes  common.  We  find  it  in  a  By¬ 
zantine  plaque  of  steatite  in  the  museum  of  Berlin/  in  the  mosaics  of 
St.  Luke  at  Phokis/  in  a  mosaic  of  Mt.  Athos/  in  an  ivory  casket 
of  the  XI-XII  century  at  the  Bargello,  in  Florence/  in  a  Byzantine 
ivory  plaque  of  the  XI-XII  century  in  the  treasure  of  the  cathedral 
at  Treves/  and  in  a  cameo  of  the  XI  century  in  the  Schatz-Kammer 
of  Vienna.^®  The  motive  is  constant  in  Spanish  ivories  of  the  XI 
century.  It  is  found  in  the  Areas  of  San  Millan  (Ill.  639,  641,  643, 
644,  648,  649)  and  San  Felices  (Ill.  661-664),  t^he  Jaca  book- 

cover  (Ill.  519).  It  is  also  found  on  the  Oviedo  Area  Santa  (Ill.  656, 
659).  In  stone  sculpture  the  motive  appears  in  the  Carlovingian 
relief  found  at  St.-Pierre  de  la  Citadelle  at  Metz ;  it  is  prominent 
in  the  sculptures  of  1060  from  the  Mauritzkirche,  now  in  the  West- 
falischen  Landesmuseum  at  Munster  and  in  the  reliefs  of  1049-1064 
at  St.  Emmeran  of  Regensburg  (Ill.  1281).  Its  presence  at  Santo 
Domingo  de  Silos  at  the  end  of  the  XI  century  is  therefore  entirely 
normal.  The  motive  continued  to  be  popular  in  the  XII  century, 
especially  in  the  Pilgrimage  school  of  sculpture.  In  the  XII  century, 
however,  the  hands  are  apt  to  be  large  and  coarse,  while  in  the  XI 
they  are  generally  small  and  refined.  This  difference  will  be  readily 

*  This  statue  is  illustrated  in  the  catalogue  of  the  Exposition. 

^  Illustrated  by  Bertaux,  PI.  Ill,  loo. 

^  Illustrated  by  Venturi,  II,  656. 

'*  See  the  Benedictional  of  St.  Aethelwold,  passim,  illustrated  by  Warner  and  Wilson.  Also 
the  Besanjon  Gospels,  illustrated  by  Homburger,  PL  XI. 

®  Illustrated  by  Schlumberger,  II,  85. 

®  Illustrated  ibid.,  II,  93. 

^  Illustrated  ibid.,  II,  141. 

*  Illustrated  ibid..  Ill,  69. 

®  Illustrated  ibid..  Ill,  565. 

Illustrated  ibid..  Ill,  593. 

“  Illustrated  by  de  Lasteyrie,  42. 


SANTO  DOMINGO  DE  SILOS 


49 


appreciated  upon  comparing  the  New  York  ivory  (Ill.  709)  with  the 
mosaics  of  St.  Luke  at  Phokis.’-  Now  the  Santo  Domingo  hands  are 
distinctly  of  the  XI  century  type. 

The  little  capitals  under  the  arches  of  the  Santo  Domingo  reliefs 
at  first  sight  seem  almost  Gothic  in  character,  and  to  suggest  a  date 
at  an  advanced  period  of  the  XII  century.  Similar  capitals  are,  how¬ 
ever,  found  in  the  choir  of  the  cathedral  at  Santiago,  which  dates 
from  1078-1102.  Much  has  been  written  of  the  imitation  of  nature 
by  the  stone-carvers  of  the  XII  century  in  the  Ile-de-France,  and  of 
the  appearance  about  ii40of  local  flora  in  Gothic  capitals.  The  in¬ 
spiration  seems,  in  fact,  to  have  come  less  from  “the  tender  forms 
of  the  budding  spring,”  than  from  the  capitals  that  had  been  exe¬ 
cuted  at  Santiago  some  sixty  years  before.  Certain  ones  of  the  cathe¬ 
dral  of  Noyon,  for  example,  seem  almost  like  direct  reproductions 
of  those  in  the  Santiago  triforium.  These  Gothic-like  capitals  are 
perhaps  derived  from  Carlovingian  manuscripts.  Those  of  Santo 
Domingo  de  Silos,  for  example,  might  easily  have  been  inspired  by 
some  such  miniature  as  that  of  the  Gospels  of  Ada  at  Treves,^ 
dating  from  the  VIII  or  IX  century.  We  have  found  many  other 
indications  of  the  influence  of  Germany  upon  the  art  of  Spain,  and 
indeed  of  Europe,  in  the  XI  century. 

M.  Bertaux  ^  seems  to  have  been  deterred  from  dating  the  sculp¬ 
ture  of  Santo  Domingo  de  Silos  to  the  XI  century  by  the  form  of  the 
shields,  which  are  pointed  (Ill.  670),  whereas  he  seems  to  be  under 
the  impression  that  round  shields  were  used  in  the  XI  century.  This 
is  an  error.  Pointed  shields  were  regularly  used  in  the  last  quarter 
of  the  XI  century  ^  although  round  ones  occasionally  persisted  until 

^  Illustrated  by  Schlumberger,  II,  93. 

^  Illustrated  by  Boinet,  PI.  VIII. 

^  In  Andre  Michel,  II,  i,  227. 

^  Examples  may  be  found  as  early  as  the  middle  of  the  XI  century  in  a  miniature  illustrated 
by  Lefebvre  des  Noettes,  216  (Bib.  Nat.  MS.  lat.  6),  and  in  the  Area  of  San  Millan  (Ill.  647). 
There  are, numerous  examples  of  the  last  quarter  of  the  XI  century.  Thus  we  find  them  on  a 
capital  of  the  church  at  Airvault  (Ill.  899),  a  monument  consecrated  in  1100;  in  a  manuscript  illus¬ 
trated  by  Quicherat,  135 ;  in  the  Gospels  of  the  Countess  Matilda,  Morgan  Library,  New  York, 
dated  1098-1099,  illustrated  by  Warner,  XII ;  in  a  miniature  of  the  “Histoire  de  Skylitzes,”  a 
manuscript  of  the  XI  century  in  the  national  library  of  Madrid,  illustrated  by  Schlumberger, 


50  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

an  advanced  period  of  the  XII  centuryd  The  absence  of  a  nasal  piece 
in  the  armour  at  Santo  Domingo  (Ill.  670)  is  an  indication  of  date  in 
the  XI  century.^ 

M.  Bertaux  ®  in  studying  the  relief  of  the  Deposition  (Ill.  669) 
remarks  the  curious  flame-shaped  pebbles  at  the  foot  of  the  cross, 
and  observes  that  they  are  similar  to  those  on  a  capital  of  St.-Etienne 
of  Toulouse.^  He  concludes  that  Santo  Domingo  de  Silos  is  derived 
from  Toulouse,®  and  consequently  later  in  date.  The  truth  seems  to 
be,  however,  that  the  relationship  was  the  other  way  about.  These 
flame-shaped  pebbles  are  an  ancient  Spanish  motive.  They  are  found 
in  precisely  the  same  form  in  an  early  miniature  of  the  Crucifixion 
in  a  missal  of  San  Millan  de  la  Cogolla,®  now  in  the  Biblioteca  of  the 
Academia  de  Historia.  The  same  motive  reappears  in  the  Area  of 
San  Felices  (Ill.  662)  and  something  like  it  in  the  Area  of  San  Millan 
(Ill.  640,  644).  It  seems,  therefore,  certain  that  it  originated  in 
Spain,  and  that  it  was  there  known  in  the  XI  century,  and  indeed 
much  before.’ 

II,  388  and  III,  1 12  (here  the  Saracens  have  round  shields) ;  in  the  Bayeux  tapestry  (where  a 
very  few  round  shields  also  occur) ;  in  a  miniature  of  the  XI  century.  Bib.  Nat.,  lat.  8878, 
illustrated  by  Lefebvre  des  Noettes,  Fig.  24;  in  an  ivory-carving  of  the  XI  century  at  the  Bar- 
gello  in  Florence,  illustrated  by  Graeven,  //«/.,  No.  30;  in  the  sculptures  of  the  Mauritzkirche, 
now  in  the  Westfalischen  Landesmuseum  at  Munster,  dated  1060  and  illustrated  by  Creutz, 
PI.  II;  and  in  a  miniature  of  the  Gebhardshibel  at  the  Stiftsbibliothek  of  Admont,  Cod.  51 1, 
illustrated  by  Swarzenski,  Taf.  XXXI,  and  apparently  dating  from  the  1070’s. 

^  They  are  found  on  a  capital  of  the  middle  of  the  XII  century  at  St.-Maurice  of  Vienne, 
illustrated  by  Begule,  1 1 8 ;  with  pointed  ones  in  the  sculptures  of  Ripoll  (Ill.  570,  588) ;  in  the 
Bede  of  St.-Feliu  of  Gerona,  illustrated  by  Sacs ;  and  in  the  destroyed  pavement  of  Brindisi, 
a  dated  monument  of  1178  (Bertaux,  494). 

^  See  Lefebvre  des  Noettes,  230.  ®  In  Andre  Michel,  II,  i,  226. 

*  The  motive  also  appears  on  a  capital  of  St.-Nectaire  representing  the  Three  Maries  at  the 
Tomb  (Ill.  1190),  and  on  a  capital  of  the  southern  side  aisle  of  Notre-Dame-du-Port  of  Cler¬ 
mont-Ferrand  (Ill.  1184)  representing  the  Temptation.  Both  these  works  are  of  the  second 
half  of  the  XII  century,  and  belong  to  a  school  formed,  as  we  shall  see  (p.  234  f.),  under  the  in¬ 
fluence  of  Spanish  sculpture. 

5  The  only  other  example  of  the  motive  that  I  know  in  France  is  in  the  frescos  of  Vicq.  These 
also  present  many  analogies  with  Spanish  work.  Mr.  Cook  calls  attention  to  the  similarities 
of  the  draperies  to  Catalan  frescos.  The  composition  of  the  Last  Supper  is  like  that  of  the  same 
subject  on  the  Area  of  San  Felices  (Ill.  661). 

®  Illustrated  by  Godoy  Alcantara  in  Museo,  III,  65.  Something  very  like  this  motive  is  in 
several  panels  of  the  Hildesheim  doors,  e.g.^  scene  of  the  Adoration  of  the  Magi,  illustrated  by 
Dibelius,  Taf.  8. 

^  Could  it  have  been  derived  from  a  misunderstanding  of  the  cloud  swirls  of  some  such  min- 


SANTO  DOMINGO  DE  SILOS 


51 


In  the  eyes  of  M.  Bertaux,  the  crossed  legs  of  the  Santo  Domingo 
reliefs  (Ill.  667-673)  were  also  an  indication  of  derivation  from  Tou¬ 
louse  and  of  late  date.  We  have  already  traced  the  history  of  this 
motived  and  have  seen  how  ancient  is  its  origin,  and  how  wide  its 
diffusion.  There  is  not  the  slightest  reason  to  suppose  that  it  came 
into  Spain  from  Toulouse.  It  was  already  acclimated  in  the  penin¬ 
sula  in  1075,  for  we  find  it  in  that  year  in  the  Area  Santa  at  Oviedo 

(Ill.  657).  _ 

A  peculiarity  of  the  costumes  in  the  Santo  Domingo  reliefs  (Ill. 
667-673)  is  the  presence  of  a  vertical  slit  in  the  front  of  the  neck  of 
the  under-garment.  This  is  found  in  other  works  of  the  XI  century 
—  in  the  Gospels  of  the  Countess  Matilda  in  the  Morgan  Library 
at  New  York, 2  a  dated  work  of  1098-1099 ;  in  the  Areas  of  San  Millan 
(Ill.  638-649)  and  San  Felices  (Ill.  663,  664) ;  in  the  Bayeux  tapestry ; 
in  the  reliefs  of  the  Beatitudes  from  San  Isidoro  of  Leon  (Ill.  651- 
653) ;  in  a  capital  of  Jaca  (Ill.  520)  and  in  the  throne  of  San  Niccola 
of  Bari  (Ill.  154),  a  dated  monument  of  1098.  The  motive  occasion¬ 
ally  persisted  in  the  XII  century,  as  we  have  seen,^  but  its  presence 
at  Santo  Domingo  tends  to  confirm  the  dating  to  the  XI  century. 

A  peculiarity  of  the  armour  at  Santo  Domingo  (Ill.  670)  is  the 
chain  mail  covering  the  chin.  Armour  of  precisely  this  same  type 
is  found  in  the  Area  of  San  Millan  (Ill.  647). 

Another  peculiarity  of  the  style  of  the  Santo  Domingo  sculptures 
is  the  drawing  of  the  arms.  Take  for  example  the  extended  arm  of 
Christ  in  the  Doubting  Thomas  (Ill.  671).  The  member  seems  to  be 
made  of  wood;  there  is  no  joint  at  the  elbow;  the  upper  arm  is  dis¬ 
proportionately  short,  the  biceps  are  not  indicated.  The  fingers  of 
the  hand  are  drawn  like  parallel  sticks,  the  thumb  along  side  of  the 

iature  as  that  representing  the  Second  Coming  of  Christ  in  the  Benedictional  of  St.  Aethelwold 
at  Chatsworth,  folio  lo,  illustrated  by  Warner  and  Wilson? 

^See  above,  p.  21. 

^Illustrated  by  Warner. 

®  See  above,  p.  42.  It  also  occurs  in  one  of  the  reliefs  of  Angoul^me  (Ill.  932),  in  a  sculpture 
from  Ebreuil  (Ill.  1 255),  in  an  apostle  of  St.-Gilles  (Ill.  1310),  in  a  capital  of  Clermont-Ferrand 
(Ill.  1174),  in  the  relief  of  the  Shepherds  from  Parthenay  (Ill.  1054),  in  the  Queen  of  Sheba  of 
the  Portico  della  Gloria  (Ill.  839),  at  La  Lande  de  Fronzac  (Ill.  917). 


52  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

others.  This  primitive  modelling  of  one  member  in  a  style  in  many 
ways  so  accomplished  is  striking.  Now  in  the  S.  Isidoro  crucifix  of 
1063  (Ill.  654)  we  find  arms  that  are  modelled  in  precisely  the  same 
manner,  even  to  the  most  minute  particulars ;  and  here  again  this 
primitive  anatomy  contrasts  with  a  technique  in  other  ways  re¬ 
markably  perfect.  This  peculiar  manner  of  drawing  the  arms  is 
characteristic  of  the  XI  century;  in  the  XII  century  the  treatment 
was  entirely  diffierent,  as  may  for  example  be  seen  in  the  New  York 
ivory  (Ill.  710). 

It  has  been  supposed  that  the  movement  of  the  figures  in  the 
Santo  Domingo  reliefs  (Ill.  667-673)  indicates  a  date  in  the  XII 
century.  However,  a  little  reflection  suffices  to  bring  the  conviction 
that  precisely  such  movement  was  characteristic  of  the  last  quarter 
of  the  XI  century.  There  is  assuredly  no  lack  of  movement  in  the 
Oviedo  Area  Santa  of  1075  (Ill.  657).  We  find  it  also  in  the  minor 
figures  of  the  Madrid  crucifix  of  1063  (Ill.  654,  655).  Nor  is  it  absent 
in  the  frescos  representing  the  life  of  St.  Alexius  in  the  lower  church 
of  S.  Clemente  at  Rome,  works  executed  between  1073  and  1084. 
Precisely  such  thin  wiggly  figures  as  those  of  Santo  Domingo  (Ill. 
672)  are  found  on  the  Jaca  book-cover,  which  was  carved  before 
1085  (Ill.  519).  The  movement  of  Silos  is,  moreover,  completely 
paralleled  in  the  capitals  of  Cluny  (Ill.  5-10),  which  date  from  1088- 
1095. 

The  clinging  draperies  of  Santo  Domingo  (Ill.  667-673)  are  closely 
analogous  to  those  of  the  Jaca  book-cover  of  before  1085  (Ill.  519). 
They  also  resemble  those  of  Cluny  (1089-1095),  falling  in  the  same 
folds  over  the  legs,  or  hanging  down  in  the  same  zig-zag  edges  (Ill. 
5-10).  When  we  compare  the  draperies  of  Silos  with  those  of  the 
Christ  at  St.  Emmeran  of  Regensburg  (1049-1064),  we  notice  not 
only  that  they  are  of  the  same  clinging  type,  with  similar  broad  flat 
folds,  but  we  find  the  same  convention  of  indicating  the  modelling 
by  two  parallel  lines  (Ill.  1279,  1280). 

The  hair  and  beard  convention  used  at  Santo  Domingo  de  Silos 
(Ill.  667-673)  consists  of  a  division  into  strands  each  of  which  is 


SANTO  DOMINGO  DE  SILOS 


53 


incised  with  a  number  of  parallel  lines.  Now  the  hair  is  executed  in 
precisely  this  same  way  in  the  Christ  of  St.  Emmeran  of  Regensburg 
(Ill.  1279,  1280),  which  is  a  dated  monument  of  1049-1064.^ 

The  skilful  handling  of  groups  of  figures  at  Silos  (Ill.  671-673) 
recalls  the  frescos  of  the  life  of  St.  Alexius  in  the  lower  church  of 
S.  Clemente  at  Rome  (1073-1084).  A  similar  treatment  of  masses, 
and  heads  tipped  in  the  same  way  recur  in  the  Gospels  of  the  Coun¬ 
tess  Matilda,  in  the  Morgan  Library,  a  dated  work  of  1098-1099.^ 
The  harpies  of  the  Silos  capital  (Ill.  666)  are  very  similar  to  the 
sphinxes  sculptured  on  the  right  side  of  the  throne  at  Canosa,  just 
above  the  elephant.  Now  this  throne  is  a  dated  monument  of  1078- 
1089.^ 

The  mastery  of  line  and  delicacy  of  technique  characteristic  of 
Silos  (Ill.  667-673)  are  paralleled  in  the  frescos  of  the  life  of  St. 
Alexius  in  the  lower  church  of  S.  Clemente  at  Rome  (1073-1084). 
Even  a  closer  analogy  is  to  be  found  in  the  capitals  of  Cluny  (1088- 
1095).  The  faces  at  Cluny  though  of  different  type  are  like  those  of 
Silos  in  being  archaic  and  conventionalized  (Ill.  5-9). 

When  we  compare  the  sculptures  of  Silos  (Ill.  667-673)  with  those 
of  Moissac  cloisters  (Ill.  262-287),  which  are  dated  1100,  we  are  at 
once  struck  by  the  many  points  of  contact.^  These  are  so  evident, 
and  have  been  so  much  insisted  upon,  that  it  is  unnecessary  to  de- 


*  The  motive  must  be  of  very  ancient  origin,  since  it  runs  through  the  art  of  the  Far  East. 
The  hair  of  a  statue  of  Shindatsura-Taisho,  for  example,  in  the  temple  Kofuku-ji  at  Nara,  a 
work  of  the  early  Fujiwara  period  (888-1068  a.d.)  —  illustration  published  by  the  Nara  Im¬ 
perial  Museum  —  has  hair  executed  according  to  this  convention  and  flaming  upward,  very 
like  the  hair  of  the  demons  on  the  capitals  of  Vezelay  (Ill.  42).  The  convention,  indeed,  per¬ 
sisted  in  the  sculpture  of  the  XII  century,  being  found  at  Souillac  (Ill.  346),  Moissac  (Ill.  365) 
and  in  the  Externstein  of  the  Teutoberger  Forest,  a  dated  monument  of  1115  (illustrated  by 
Creutz,  Taf.  V),  in  a  relief  of  the  Nikolauskapelle  of  the  Munster  at  Freiburg  (illustrated  by 
Weise,  abb.  3)  and  elsewhere.  The  Externstein  should  be  compared  with  the  Santo  Domingo 
Deposition  (Ill.  669)  for  other  details  as  well. 

^  Illustrated  by  Warner.  A  Catalan  antependium  of  the  Barcelona  Museum,  No.  2,  called 
to  my  attention  by  Mr.  Cook,  shows  analogous  grouping,  and  heads  similarly  tipped.  This 
painting,  however,  is  inspired  by  the  sculptures.  The  draperies  are  like  those  of  the  Moissac 
cloister  reliefs. 

®  Photograph  by  Alinari,  No.  35224. 

*  Note  that  the  scale  ornament  so  characteristic  of  Moissac  (Ill.  267)  is  found  at  Silos 
(Ill.  671). 


54  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

scribe  them  in  detail;  for  our  purpose  the  points  of  difference  are 
more  significant.  It  is  obvious  that  Moissac  is  coarser,  Silos  more 
refined.  Compare  for  example  the  hands  at  Moissac  (Ill.  266)  with 
the  hands  at  Cluny  (Ill.  5)  and  at  Silos  (Ill.  671).  It  is  clear  at  once 
that  Moissac  conforms  to  what  we  have  learned  to  recognize  as  the 
XII  century  type,  whereas  Cluny  and  Silos  are  of  the  earlier,  XI 
century  tradition.  There  is  the  same  difference  throughout  the 
sculptures  —  at  Moissac  we  feel  everywhere  the  settling  down  of  the 
coarse  and  brutal  manner  which  was  to  culminate  in  such  works  as 
the  Toulouse  apostles  (Ill.  437-443).  When  we  compare  the  New 
York  ivory  (Ill.  710)  with  the  Madrid  crucifix  (Ill.  654)  we  feel  pre¬ 
cisely  the  same  difference  that  we  find  between  the  Moissac  cloisters 
(Ill.  262-273)  and  those  of  Silos  (Ill.  667-673).  It  is  the  difference 
between  the  XII  and  the  XI  century.  Fatigati  considered  the  clois¬ 
ters  of  Silos  later  than  those  of  Moissac,  because  they  are  better. 
He  was  right  that  they  are  better,  but  this  fact  should  rather  be  con¬ 
sidered  an  argument  for  their  being  earlier. 

When  we  look  closely  at  the  sculptures  of  the  Moissac  cloister 
(Ill.  262-273),  we  notice  that  the  faces  are  more  individualized  and 
better  characterized  than  those  of  Silos  or  Cluny.  The  hair  conven¬ 
tions  also  are  more  naturalistic  and  more  varied.  The  hat  of  the 
St.  John  at  Moissac  (Ill.  269)  seems  obviously  more  advanced  than 
that  of  the  Silos  Christ  at  Emmaus  (Ill.  667).  The  hair  of  the  St. 
James  at  Moissac  (Ill.  265)  is  evidently  more  developed  than  the 
hair  at  Silos  (Ill.  667).  The  ornamental  borders  to  the  garments 
of  St.  Durand  (Ill.  262,  264)  and  St.  James  (Ill.  265)  at  Moissac 
have  no  counterpart  at  Silos  (Ill.  667-673).  The  cross  of  St.  Andrew 
at  Silos  (Ill.  673)  seems  more  primitive  than  that  of  the  seraph  of  the 
St.-Sernin  ambulatory  (Ill.  298).  The  letters  of  the  inscriptions  at 
Santo  Domingo  (Ill.  667-673)  are  more  archaic  than  those  of  Moissac 
(Ill.  262-273). 

We  look  through  the  entire  field  of  XII  century  sculpture  without 
finding  a  single  parallel  for  the  style  of  Santo  Domingo.  The  reader 
will  only  have  to  compare  the  photographs  of  monuments  like  Ripoll 


SANTO  DOMINGO  DE  SILOS 


55 

(Ill.  561-593)  or  Leire  (Ill.  712-716)  to  be  convinced  of  the  wide 
gulf  which  separates  such  works  from  Silos. 

We  may,  therefore,  I  think,  conclude  that  the  sculptures  of  Santo 
Domingo  de  Silos  were  executed,  precisely  as  the  documentary  evi¬ 
dence  indicates,  in  the  last  third  of  the  XI  century. 

The  question  whence  this  art  was  derived  remains.  It  can  perhaps 
never  be  fully  answered.  We  have  seen  that  the  Silos  reliefs  present 
numerous  points  of  contact  with  earlier  and  contemporary  ivory- 
carvings  of  Spain.  Certainly  local  tradition  must  be  credited  with 
having  contributed  fundamentally  to  the  formation  of  the  style. 

It  may  be  suspected  that  the  Benedictine  style  of  Monte  Cassino 
influenced  the  development  of  this  sculpture.  Santo  Domingo  was, 
we  know,  during  his  entire  life  in  close  touch  with  Monte  Cassino.^ 
It  is  perhaps  this  common  Benedictine  influence  that  explains  the 
points  of  contact  between  Santo  Domingo  with  Cluny  on  the  one 
hand  and  S.  Clemente  of  Rome  on  the  other.  The  church  of  San 
Marcello  of  Capua  contains  a  southern  portal  (Ill.  166)  which  shows 
analogies  both  with  Cluny  and  with  Santo  Domingo.  Now  this 
church  depended  directly  upon  Monte  Cassino. ^ 

The  similarities  between  Santo  Domingo  and  the  sculptures  of 
St.  Emmeran  of  Regensburg  are  probably  to  be  accounted  for  by  the 
German  influence  which  we  have  seen  was  exerted  upon  Spanish 
ivories. 

Another  and  unexpected  analogy  with  the  Santo  Domingo  sculp¬ 
tures  is  not  so  easily  explained.  There  is  an  obvious  similarity  with 
the  reliefs  of  Chichester  cathedral  in  England.®  These  are  believed 
by  Messrs.  Prior  and  Gardner  to  date  from  as  early  as  c.  1000.  We 
have  already  remarked  numerous  similarities  between  the  sculptures 
of  Silos  and  manuscripts  of  the  school  of  Winchester.  Even  more 

^  Fategati,  27. 

^  Inscriptions  connect  the  church  with  the  abbot  Alferius,  who  is  mentioned  in  1 1 13  (Schulz, 
II,  165).  One  of  these  placed  over  the  western  portal  reads : 

+  DA[T]  XPO  BALVAS:  ABBAS  ALFERIVS  ALBAS 
VT  CAELI  REGNVM :  VALEAT  PENETRARE  SUPERNVM 

^  Illustrated  by  Prior  and  Gardner,  138. 


56  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

striking  are  the  points  of  contact  with  an  English  Latin  Gospel  of  the 
XI  century.^  In  this  we  find  the  Silos  feeling  for  line  and  delicacy. 
But  most  striking  of  all  is  the  similarity  of  Silos  to  an  English  manu¬ 
script  of  the  first  half  of  the  XII  century  from  Bury  St.  Edmunds.^ 
The  Christ  of  the  Silos  Journey  to  Emmaus  (Ill.  667)  in  facial  type, 
cap,  attenuation,  and  movement  of  lines  is  strikingly  similar  to  the 
protagonist  in  a  miracle  of  St.  Edmund ;  the  grouping  of  the  crowd 
in  the  miniature  recalls  the  relief  of  Doubting  Thomas  (Ill.  671), 
although  it  is  somewhat  less  rhythmic.  A  New  Testament  written 
at  Bury  St.  Edmunds  in  the  first  half  of  the  XII  century  ®  is  similar 
in  style  to  the  Miracles  of  St.  Edmund,  and  also  presents  analogies 
with  the  work  at  Silos.  I  can  only  suppose  that  the  same  work  of 
art,  perhaps  an  English  miniature,  served  as  prototype  for  both  the 
Silos  reliefs  and  these  manuscripts  of  the  XII  century.^ 

It  is  a  singular  fact  that  a  Beatus  manuscript  of  1109,  written  for 
the  abbey  of  Santo  Domingo,  shows  no  affinity  with  the  sculptures, 
but  similarity  to  Irish  miniatures.^ 

From  the  aesthetic  point  of  view,  the  reliefs  of  Santo  Domingo 
represent  a  notable  achievement.  The  formal  and  archaic  compo¬ 
sition  is  founded  upon  a  subtle  appreciation  of  the  significance  of 
opposed  lines  and  masses.  How  satisfactory,  for  example,  is  the 
grouping  of  the  guards  about  the  tomb  of  Christ  (Ill.  670) ;  how  ex¬ 
quisite  the  two  end  figures,  lunging  strongly  outward  from  the 
central  group,  as  in  a  Pontormo  drawing.  There  is  the  perfection 
of  balance  in  the  Nicodemus  and  the  Joseph  of  Arimathea  bending 

^  Illustrated  in  the  Burlington  Catalogue,  PI.  21,  No.  21. 

^Illustrated  in  the  Burlington  Catalogue,  PI.  23,  No.  18.  I  owe  this  observation  to  Mr. 
Cook. 

®  Illustrated  in  the  Burlington  Catalogue,  PI.  28,  No.  23. 

^  This  might  also  account  for  the  similarities  between  Silos  and  Cluny,  for  Cluny  as  we  shall 
see  was  under  the  strong  influence  of  manuscripts  of  the  school  of  Winchester.  What  is  puz¬ 
zling  is  that  the  Bury  St.  Edmunds  Testament  seems  to  show  evidence  of  having  itself  fallen 
under  the  influence  of  sculpture.  The  draperies  of  the  Christ  in  the  upper  part  of  the  miniature 
to  which  we  have  referred  look  as  if  they  had  been  inspired  by  the  Virgin  of  the  Annunciation 
of  the  Moissac  porch  (Ill.  376). 

5  British  Museum,  Add.  MS.  ii,  695.  Illustrated  by  Bond  and  Thompson,  I,  48-49.  The 
Ryerson  Beatus,  of  the  end  of  the  XII  century  on  the  other  hand,  resembles  the  Silos  sculp¬ 
tures  in  the  rigid  rows  of  figures,  and  in  the  hands  raised,  palm  outwards. 


SANTO  DOMINGO  DE  SILOS 


57 


over  the  dead  Christ ;  and  the  diagonal  line  formed  by  the  lid  of 
the  sarcophagus  is  singularly  happy.  We  shall  have  to  journey  far 
before  we  encounter  again  composition  as  original  and  as  success¬ 
ful.  i^nd  can  even  the  proudest  moment  of  the  Italian  Renaissance 
show  a  relief  to  equal  the  Pentecost  (Ill.  673)  —  apparently  the 
earliest,  and  certainly  the  finest  of  the  series  —  with  the  twelve 
apostles,  like  candle-flames,  swirling  towards  the  Day-Spring  from 
on  high  ? 

The  historical  importance  of  Santo  Domingo  de  Silos  is  very  great. 
Its  direct  influence  may  be  traced  in  such  monuments  as  the  cloister 
at  Moissac  (Ill.  262-287),  the  porch  at  Souillac  (Ill.  343-35^)>  ^tid  the 
cloisters  at  Arles  (Ill.  1344-1365)  and  St.-Guilhem-le-Desert  (Ill. 
1397-1399).  From  such  centres  as  these,  its  message  could  be  carried, 
to  well-nigh  every  sculptor  of  the  XII  century  in  Europe. 

There  is  one  other  monument  which  should  be  studied  before  we 
turn  away  from  the  XI  century  in  Spain.  This  is  the  grand  Virgin 
(Ill.  770)  now  in  the  Madrid  Museo  Arqueologico,  and  coming  from 
Sahagun.  Sahagun,  a  focal  point  on  the  road  of  St.  James,  was  the 
most  important  Cluniac  possession  in  Spain.  The  statue  ^  lacks  the 
delicacy  of  technique  characteristic  of  Santo  Domingo,  but  in  com¬ 
pensation  possesses  something  of  the  aloofness  and  impassivity  of 
Mr.  Berenson’s  Bodhisattva  which  it  so  unexpectedly  resembles, 
even  in  technical  detail.  The  folds  of  the  drapery  are  doubtless 
derived  from  Cluny ;  something  in  the  shape  of  the  group  with  two 
symmetrical  and  strongly  empathic  curves,  reaching  their  widest 
point  at  the  hips,  recalls  the  tympanum  of  Charlieu  (Ill.  4),  which  is 
dated  1094.  The  zig-zag  drapery  edges  are  also  like  Charlieu.  This 
way  of  treating  the  drapery  edge  is,  however,  very  ancient  in  Spain, 
being  found  in  an  Iberian  statue  of  the  Madrid  Museum  (Ill.  637). * 
Evidently  the  Virgin  of  Sahagun  is  a  product  of  the  last  years  of  the 
XI  century ;  in  fact,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  it  belonged  to 

^  It  was  found  placed  “  al  centre  de  una  ventana  tapiada  de  la  iglesia  de  San  Tirso,  para  cuyo 
punto  indudablemente  no  habia  side  hecha”  (Juan  de  Dios,  in  Museo,  VII,  289).  Thence  it 
went  to  Leon,  and  to  Madrid  in  1869. 

*  For  the  history  of  the  motive,  see  below,  p.  72. 


58  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

the  church  of  Sahagun  begun  in  1080^  and  consecrated  in  1099. * 
The  Virgin  is  seated  on  a  chair,  the  legs  of  which  are  carved  at  the 
ends  to  represent  animals’  claws.  This  is  the  earliest  example  I  know 
of  a  motive  destined  to  win  great  popularity  in  the  XII  century. 

^  Lamperez,  I,  692.  ^  Escalona,  88. 


V 


THE  BARI  THRONE 

The  throne  at  S.  Niccola  of  Bari  (Ill.  1 52-1 55)  is  dated  1098  by  an 
inscription  ^  and  by  a  contemporary  chronicle. ^ 

The  archivolt  of  the  ancient  portal  of  the  cathedral  at  Monopoli 
(Ill.  158-162),  a  building  begun  in  1107,®  is,  as  Wackernagel  has 
recognized,^  by  the  same  hand.^ 

Now,  what  is  extraordinary,  is  that  certain  sculptures  at  St.- 
Gilles  in  Provence  show  close  analogies  with  the  style  of  this  sculp¬ 
tor  who  worked  in  Apulia  at  the  end  of  the  XI  and  the  beginning  of 
the  XII  century.  The  lioness  of  remarkable  realism  beneath  the 
Bari  throne  (Ill.  155)  is  exceedingly  like  the  animals  in  procession 
below  the  St.-Gilles  frieze  (Ill.  1316).  The  lioness  just  below  the 
Flagellation  (Ill.  1322),  for  example,  has  the  same  head,  the  same 
ears,  the  same  eyes,  the  same  nose,  the  same  body,  the  same  legs, 
the  same  claws,  the  same  lank  proportions.  This  resemblance  is  the 

1  +  INCLITVS  ATQ.  BONVS  SEDET  HAC  IN  SEDE  PATRONVS 
PRESVL  BARINVS  HELIAS  ET  CANVSINVS 
^  MLXXXXVIIII.  Ind.  VII.  Tertia  die  intrante  mense  Octubr.  venit  Papa  Urbanus  cum 
plures  Archiepiscopi,  et  Episcopi,  Abbatibus,  et  Commitibus,  intraverunt  in  Bari,  et  suscepti 
sunt  cum  magna  reverentia,  et  praeparavit  Domino  Helia  nostro  Archiepiscopo  mirificam 
sedem  intus  in  Ecclesia  Beatissimi  Nicolay  confessoris  Christi.  Et  fecit  ibi  Synodum  per  unam 
ebdomada.  Post  completis  dies  octo  perrexit  in  pace;  et  in  mense  Julii  obiit  ipse  Papa  Ur¬ 
banus,  et  surrexit  Pascalis  Papa.  (Anonymi  Barensis  Chronicon,  ed.  Muratori,  Rerum  Itali- 
carum  Scriptores,  V,  155). 

^  The  archivolt  bears  the  inscription : 

t  MILLENIS  ANNIS  CENTENIS  ATQ;  P[ER]ACTI^SEPTENIS. 

NAT’  DEI  XPS  VENTVS  IN  ORBE:  HOC  PSVL  TEPLV  IVSSIT  FIERI 
ROMOALDVS:  ANNIS  T  DENIS  PLENIS  SIBI  PONTIFICATV;  TEMPORE  SVB 
COMITIS  MAGNI  DNI  Q’  ROBERT’  AVXILIO  CVIVS  TEPLI  LABOR  EDITVS 
HVIVS.’ 

^  44-_ 

®  It  is  unnecessary  to  repeat  here  what  has  already  been  said  by  Wackernagel,  and  never 
questioned.'  The  intelligent  reader  may  indeed  easily  convince  himself  that  the  Monopoli 
archivolt  and  the  Bari  throne  are  works  of  the  same  artist  by  comparing  the  photographs  (Ill. 

1 52-155  and  Ill.  158-162).  On  the  other  hand  the  archivolt  at  Acerenza  is  inferior  in  quality, 
and  the  work  of  a  copyist. 


6o  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

more  striking  that  such  naturalistic  animal  sculptures  are  excep¬ 
tional  in  Romanesque  art.  These  animals  would  indeed  make  us 
think  of  Barye  rather  than  of  the  XI  or  XII  century.  Nor  do  I 
know  of  any  other  representation  of  a  lioness  in  Romanesque 
sculpture. 

The  heads  of  the  angels  of  the  Monopoli  archivolt  are  very  simi¬ 
lar  to  the  heads  below  the  frieze  and  on  the  capitals  of  St.-Gilles. 
Compare  with  the  heads  of  Monopoli  (Ill.  158-162)  the  head  just 
below  the  Flagellation  (Ill.  1322)  or  on  the  capital  beneath  (Ill. 
1322).  In  both  there  is  the  same  round  proportion,  the  same  low 
forehead,  the  same  broad,  flat  nose,  the  same  line  from  the  nose  to 
the  corners  of  the  mouth,  the  same  arched  eye-brows,  the  same  in¬ 
cised  pupils,  the  same  execution  of  the  eye-lids,  the  same  round 
flabby  chin,  the  same  dimple  between  the  chin  and  the  mouth.  The 
head  in  the  lioness’  mouth  at  Bari  (Ill.  155)  is  very  like  the  head  be¬ 
neath  the  Money  Changers  at  St.-Gilles  (Ill.  1316).  The  man  in  the 
mouth  of  the  lion  under  St.  Peter  at  St.-Gilles  (Ill.  1325  a)  has 
draperies  of  precisely  the  same  peculiar  type  as  those  of  the  sup¬ 
porting  figures  of  the  Bari  throne  (Ill.  152).  The  lions  beneath  the 
foot-stool  of  the  Bari  throne  (Ill.  1 52)  are  similar  to  those  beneath 
the  great  statues  at  St.-Gilles  (Ill.  1325  a,  1325  b) ;  the  motive  of 
supporting  lions  is  essentially  Italian;  three  of  the  lions  at  St.- 
Gilles  have  manes  executed  according  to  the  same  peculiar  and 
characteristic  convention  as  that  of  the  right-hand  lion  under  the 
Bari  throne  (Ill.  152). 

I  can  only  account  for  such  analogies  by  supposing  that  the  ani¬ 
mals  and  heads  below  the  St.-Gilles  frieze,  numerous  capitals,  and 
the  four  lions  beneath  the  statues  flanking  the  central  portal  in  the 
same  church  are  by  a  sculptor  from  Apulia,  and  probably  by  the  very 
master  of  the  Bari  throne.  We  shall  later  find  reason  to  believe  that 
these  portions  of  the  St.-Gilles  facade  were  in  construction  about 
1 1 40.  They  are  therefore  some  forty  years  later  than  the  Bari 
throne.  In  fact  the  style  of  the  work  at  St.-Gilles  is  unmistakably 
more  mature  and  advanced. 


THE  BARI  THRONE 


6i 


The  question  arises  whether  the  Bari  master  may  have  also  col¬ 
laborated  in  the  production  of  the  celebrated  frieze  of  St.-Gilles 
(Ill.  13 1 5-1322)  which  bears  indubitable  traces  of  being  the  work  of 
more  than  one  hand.  The  scene  of  the  Betrayal  (Ill.  1319,  1320) 
notably  differs  from  the  other  portions  of  the  frieze ;  and  it  should 
be  observed  that  the  hair  of  Judas  is  executed  according  to  the  same 
striking  and  peculiar  convention  used  in  one  of  the  supporting  fig¬ 
ures  of  the  Bari  throne  (Ill.  154).  This  convention  is  again  repeated 
in  the  Peter  and  the  executioner  behind  Judas  in  the  same  scene. 
The  latter  wears  a  peculiar  conical  casque,  very  like  the  one  of  the 
supporting  figure  of  the  Bari  throne  (Ill.  154).^ 

The  origin  of  this  sculptor  whose  activity  covers  the  first  half  of 
the  XII  century,  and  who  wandered  from  Apulia  to  Provence  be¬ 
comes  a  matter  of  considerable  interest.  Unfortunately  the  evi¬ 
dence  is  insufficient  to  make  possible  a  definite  solution  of  the 
problem. 

His  earliest  work  known  to  us  is  in  Apulia.  We  have  seen  that  a 
school  of  sculpture  of  high  merit  existed  in  that  province  as  early  as 
the  second  quarter  of  the  XI  century.  Are  we  on  the  basis  of  these 
facts  to  award  Apulia  the  same  hegemony  in  Romanesque  sculpture 
that  has  been  claimed  for  her  in  that  of  the  Renaissance  ? 

Only  one  monument  of  Lombard  sculpture  is  earlier  than  the 
Bari  throne,  and  that  is  the  tomb  of  S.  Alberto  at  Pontida,  exe¬ 
cuted  presumably  immediately  after  the  death  of  the  saint  in  1095. 
The  similarity  of  the  Bari  throne  to  this  work  is  evident,  although 
not  strikingly  close.  The  animals  in  both  are  good;  although  the 
horse  of  the  Pontida  St.  James  ^  is  far  from  rivalling  the  superlative 
excellence  of  the  lioness  of  the  Bari  throne.  The  mane  at  Pontida 
is  indicated  by  a  convention  not  dissimilar  to  that  used  for  the 
manes  at  Bari.  The  faces  of  the  supporting  figures  at  Bari  and  of 
the  Pontida  St.  James  are  of  the  same  heavy  type,  with  massive 
jaw. 

^  Caps  of  the  same  type  are  found  on  two  capitals  of  Vezelay  (Ill.  31). 

^  The  tomb  of  S.  Alberto  at  Pontida  is  illustrated  in  Porter,  Lombard  Architecture,  IV,  Plate 
189,  Fig.  I,  2. 


62  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

The  Pontida  reliefs  are  more  closely  related  to  the  Porta  dei 
Leoni  of  S.  Niccola  at  Bari  (Ill.  1 56).  The  archivolt  of  this  portal  is 
obviously  a  more  ancient  fragment  re-employed  in  the  present  door¬ 
way ;  its  evident  similarities  of  style  with  the  throne  ^  make  it  cer¬ 
tain  that  it  belonged  to  that  church  of  S.  Niccola  which  was  begun 
in  1087/  which  two  contemporary  documents  state  was  in  construc¬ 
tion  in  1089,®  of  which  the  crypt  was  built  in  1090,^  which  was  suffi¬ 
ciently  advanced  in  1098  to  accommodate  a  papal  council  ^  which 
was  consecrated  in  1105,®  of  which  the  steps  of  the  ciborium  were 
executed  after  the  death  of  Elia  in  1105  ^  and  before  that  of  Eus- 
tachio  in  1123,®  and  which  two  contemporary  inscriptions  explicitly 
state  was  built  by  Elia  (1089-1105),  and  which,  an  inscription  tells 
us,  was  adorned  by  Eustachio  (1105-1123).  The  archivolt  may 
therefore  be  considered  as  certainly  anterior  to  1105. 

When  we  compare  this  archivolt  ®  with  the  Pontida  St.  James  we 
are  at  once  struck  by  the  similarity  of  the  horses.  The  movement 
of  the  legs  is  the  same,  also  the  drawing  of  the  eyes  and  ears.  We 
notice,  too,  that  the  same  curious  little  convention  of  hollow  circles 

^  The  conical  casque  of  the  central  supporting  figure  of  the  throne  reappears  in  the  right- 
hand  horseman  of  the  archivolt;  the  facial  types  are  very  similar;  the  right  leg  of  the  figure  to 
the  right  of  the  centre  in  the  archivolt  reproduces,  line  for  line,  the  right  leg  of  the  central  sup¬ 
porting  figure;  there  is  the  same  comprehension  of  plastic  form,  the  same  mastery  of  anatomy. 

^  Wackernagel,  59. 

"  Cod.  Dip.  Bar.,  V,  23,  25. 

^  Mill.  LXXXX  Ind.  XIII.  Mense  Sept,  intravit  Urbanus  Papa  in  civitate  Bari,  et  conse- 
cravit  Helias  Archiepiscopus  in  civitate  Bari  prid.  Octubr.  Et  in  Kal.  Octubr.  edificavit  con- 
fessionem  Sancti  Nicolai.  (Anonymi  Barensis  Chronicon,  ed.  Muratori,  Rerum  Italicarum 
Scriptores,  V,  1 54.)  Elia  was  in  fact  consecrated  not  in  1090  but  in  1089. 

®  See  above,  p.  59. 

®  Wackernagel,  2. 

^  They  bear  the  inscription : 

+  HIS  GRADIBVS  TVMIDIS  ASCENSVS  AD  ALTA  lECATVR 
HIS  GRADIBVS  BLANDIS  QVERERE  CELSA  DATVR 
ERGO  NE  TVMEAS  QVI  SVRSVM  SCANDERE  QVERIS 
SIS  HVMILIS  SVPPLEX  PLANTS  ET  ATVS  ERIS 
VT  PATER  HELAS  HOC  TEMPLVM  Q  PRIVS  EGIT 
QVOD  PATER  EVSTASIVS  SIC  DECORANDO  REGIT 

*  Bertaux,  450  f.,  concedes  this  date  for  the  steps,  but  places  the  ciborium  1139-1154  because 
of  the  enamel  plaque  representing  St.  Nicolas  crowning  King  Roger.  This  plaque,  however, 
might  easily  be  later  than  the  ciborium,  just  as  the  portrait  of  Victor  Emmanuel  III  in  the 
choir  might  easily  be  later  than  the  empty  chair  beneath  it. 

®  See  especially  the  large-size  details  published  by  Wackernagel,  Tafel  XXVII  d  and  e. 


THE  BARI  THRONE 


63 

is  used  to  indicate  the  mail  of  the  knights  at  Bari,  and  to  decorate 
the  saddle-strap  of  the  horse  at  Pontida.  The  facial  types  and  hair 
conventions  are  very  similar. 

An  even  closer  analogy  with  the  Bari  archivolt  is,  however, 
offered  by  the  Porta  della  Pescheria  at  Modena.^  In  the  two  is  rep¬ 
resented  the  same  strange  iconographical  subject  —  the  inscrip¬ 
tions  at  Modena  make  it  certain  that  we  are  dealing  with  a  lost 
episode  of  the  Arthurian  cycle.  In  both  knights  on  horse-back  ap¬ 
proach  from  either  side  a  central  stronghold,  which  is  defended  by 
other  warriors.  The  horses  are  very  analogous ;  the  knights  are 
dressed  in  similar  armour,  with  coat  of  mail  reaching  to  their  knees, 
pointed  shields,  lances  with  pennants,  and  conical  casques.  At 
Modena  the  casques  have  nose-pieces,  at  Bari  they  have  not ;  and 
at  Modena  the  mail  covers  the  throats  and  chin,  which  at  Bari  are 
left  exposed.^  This  is  the  armour  which  was  in  use  in  the  last  years 
of  the  XI  or  early  years  of  the  XII  century  and  analogous  to  that 
which  we  have  found  at  Santo  Domingo  de  Silos  (Ill.  670).  The 
saddles  and  bridles  are  of  the  same  type  except  that  at  Bari  there  is 
a  strap  passing  underneath  the  horses’  tails,  which  is  lacking  at 
Modena. 

An  archivolt  of  the  cathedral  of  Angouleme  (Ill.  939)  executed  as 
we  shall  see  ®  between  mo  and  1128  should  be  compared  with  the 
two  archivolts  of  Bari  and  Modena.  It  also  represents  a  combat  of 
cavaliers  before  a  walled  town.  The  horses  are  more  poorly  drawn 
than  either  those  of  Bari  or  of  Modena,  but  are  of  essentially  the 
same  type,  and  the  movement  of  the  legs  is  the  same.  At  Angou¬ 
leme  the  shields  are  round,  instead  of  pointed ;  the  saddles  have 
sometimes  a  tail  strap  as  at  Bari ;  the  lances  are  without  pennants ;  ^ 

^  For  a  detailed  study  of  these  sculptures  see  my  Lombard  Architecture,  III,  44  f. 

^  These  two  peculiarities  would  seem  to  indicate  a  somewhat  later  date  for  Modena  than  for 
Bari.  In  chronological  questions  it  is,  however,  dangerous  to  place  too  much  reliance  upon 
details  of  costume. 

®P-307-v 

^This  is  the  more  singular  that  the  Church  at  Vezelay  a  dated  sculpture  of  1120  (illus¬ 
trated  by  Poree,  17)  holds  a  lance  with  pennant;  one  also  is  attached  to  the  lance  in  the  Ex- 
ternstein  of  the  Teutoberger  Forest,  dated  1115  (illustrated  by  Dehio,  abb.  412). 


64  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

three  of  the  knights  have  conical  casques,  like  those  of  Bari  and 
Modena,  but  a  peculiarity  is  that  from  one  of  these  casques  and 
from  the  crown  of  King  Arthur,  there  seems  to  flutter  a  sort  of  veil. 
The  mail  falls  in  a  skirt  to  the  knees,  as  at  both  Modena  and  Bari, 
but  covers  the  chin  as  at  Bari,  but  not  at  Modena.  At  Modena  and 
Bari  the  saddles  have  only  one  girth,  whereas  at  Angouleme  they 
have  two  —  this  is  an  indication  that  Angouleme  is  later  than  the 
other  two.  The  straps  of  the  harness  at  Angouleme  are  ornamented 
with  little  circles  like  those  of  the  St.  James  at  Pontida. 

By  this  comparison  of  the  details,  the  reader  will  doubtless  have 
been  convinced  of  the  close  relationship  of  the  three  reliefs,  but  he 
will  have  seen  that  the  indications  for  priority  are  contradictory  and 
confusing.  On  the  whole,  Angouleme  seems  distinctly  the  latest  of 
the  three,  and  it  appears  more  closely  affiliated  with  Bari  than  with 
Modena.  Between  Bari  and  Modena,  the  latter  seems  more  restful 
and  abler,  and  is  therefore  presumably  earlier.  If  the  archivolt  of 
Modena  was  sculptured  soon  after  work  was  begun  on  the  cathedral 
in  1099,  it  is  possible  that  it  might  have  been  copied  at  Bari  before 
1105,  and  that  Bari  might  have  been  copied  at  Angouleme  in  the 
second  decade  of  the  XII  century. 

The  motive  of  cavaliers  jousting  is  by  no  means  confined  to  the 
three  reliefs  which  we  have  been  studying.  We  find  it  in  a  manu¬ 
script  of  St.  Albans,  earlier  than  1146,  and  preserved  at  Hildes- 
heim.^  Here  it  is  explained  that  what  is  seen  corporaliter  must  be 
understood  spiritualiter;  these  warriors  who  fight  should  recall  to  us 
the  spiritual  combats  we  must  wage  against  evil.  Evidently  a  pious 
cleric  is  inventing  an  edifying  sermon  upon  an  artistic  motive  that 
originated  with  a  very  different  and  purely  secular  meaning  which 
had,  perhaps,  already  been  forgotten. 

That  the  motive  did  not  develop  from  the  reliefs  of  the  Arthurian 
cycle  which  we  have  been  studying  is  indicated  by  the  fact  that  it  is 
found  on  the  ivory  box  of  the  cathedral  of  Pamplona,  dated  1005. ^ 

^  Illustrated  by  Goldschmidt,  Albanipsalter,  46  f. 

^  Illustrated  by  Bertaux,  Exp.  Ret.,  205. 


THE  BARI  THRONE 


65 

It  enjoyed  considerable  popularity  in  Spain,  being  found  in  a  Span¬ 
ish  manuscript,^  on  a  capital  of  the  chapter-house  of  Santa  Cruz  de 
Rivas  (Palencia),  on  the  ablution-basin  of  Jativa  (Valencia),®  on  a 
capital  of  the  Catedral  Vieja  at  Salamanca  (Ill.  736)  and  on  a  capi¬ 
tal  of  the  Eremita  de  Revenga  (Segovia).^ 

It  was  in  Italy,  however,  that  the  motive  was  most  widely  dif¬ 
fused.  We  find  it  sculptured  upon  a  relief  of  c.  1120  walled  into  the 
campanile  of  S.  Stefano  of  Pavia,^  and  in  another  of  the  Palazzo 
Municipale  of  Narni.®  It  also  occurs  on  capitals  of  Sta.  Sofiaof  Bene- 
vento,  S.  Giovanni  in  Borgo  of  Pavia  and  S.  Agata  dei  Goti.®  In 
Dalmatia  it  is  found  in  a  sculpture  now  in  the  Museo  S.  Donato  at 
Zara.^ 

In  France  I  know  only  three  examples  of  the  motive :  a  sculpture 
in  the  Musee  Ochier  at  Cluny  (Ill.  27),  a  relief  in  the  apse  of  St.- 
'  Gildas-de-Rhuis  and  a  relief  flanking  the  portal  of  the  priory  at 
Anzy-le-Duc. 

The  motive,  therefore, appears  to  be  at  home  in  Italy  or  in  Spain 
rather  than  in  the  North. 

I  The  one  monument  of  the  North  which  does  offer  close  analogies 
jj  with  the  archivolts  of  Modena  and  Bari  and  the  architrave  of  An- 
gouleme  is  the  Bayeux  “tapestry.”  When  we  compare  the  warriors 
here  with  those  of  the  Porta  della  Pescheriawe  notice  great  simi¬ 
larity  in  the  armour.  The  embroidery  shows  the  same  pointed 
shields  (although  a  few  round  ones  are  introduced)  some  plain,  some 
with  devices ;  the  same  conical  casques  with  nose-pieces ;  spears  of 
the  same  type  with  identical  banners ;  in  both  some  of  the  cavaliers 
are  in  armour  and  helmeted,  others  without  armour  and  bare¬ 
headed.  The  one  essential  difference  is  that  the  Modena  warriors  in 
armour  have  a  coat  of  mail  with  skirts,  while  those  of  the  Bayeux 

^  Illustrated  in  Museo  Espanol  de  Antigiiedades,  IX,  unnumbered  plate. 

^Illustrated  by  Fatigati,  ii. 

^  Illustrated  in  the  Boletm  de  la  Sociedad  Espanola  de  Excursiones,  1895,  S^- 

*  Illustrated  in  my  Lombard  Architecture,  IV,  Plate  179,  Fig.  i. 

®  Illustrated  ibid.,  Plate  179,  Fig.  3. 

®  Bertaux,  Ital.  Mer.,  476. 

^  Illustrated  by  Gurlitt,  74. 


66  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

embroidery  wear  tight-fitting  trousers.  The  “tapestry”  which  as 
Mr.  Roger  Loomis  has  shown  certainly  dates  from  not  long  after 
1066,  resembles  Modena  more  closely  than  Bari  or  Angouleme ; 
the  chronological  order  appears  to  be  Bayeux,  Modena,  Bari, 
Angouleme.^ 

We  therefore  conclude  that  the  atelier  of  Modena  influenced  that 
of  Bari.  But  there  are  also  other  indications  that  the  atelier  of 
Bari  influenced  that  of  Modena. 

The  Bari  throne  was  carved  in  1098 ;  the  cathedral  of  Modena 
was  not  begun  until  1099.  There  is  consequently  no  doubt  that  the 
throne  is  earlier  than  the  sculptures  by  Guglielmo  at  Modena.^  But 
these  sculptures  resemble  the  throne  so  closely  that  it  would  seem 
they  must  have  been  thence  inspired. 

Motives  characteristic  of  the  art  of  Guglielmo,  and  apparently 
from  him  passed  on  to  later  sculpture,  are  supporting  lions  and  sup¬ 
porting  human  figures.  Now  both  of  these  are  found  in  the  throne 
of  Bari  (Ill.  152).  Nor  do  the  resemblances  end  here.  The  curious 
wire  hair  of  the  supporting  figure  to  the  left  of  the  Bari  throne 
(Ill.  1 53)  reappears  constantly  in  Guglielmo’s  work,  for  example,  in 
the  figure  to  the  left,  next  to  the  ark,  in  the  relief  of  Noah  and  his 
three  sons.  One  of  Guglielmo’s  most  striking  peculiarities  is  the  in¬ 
dicating  of  the  folds  of  the  drapery  by  two  parallel  incised  lines ; 
now  this  occurs  also  on  the  Bari  throne  (Ill.  154).  Another  ear-mark 
of  his  style  is  the  wave-like  pattern  formed  by  the  lower  edges  of  his 
garments.  This  also  is  found  in  the  central  supporting  figure  at 
Bari  (Ill.  154).  The  facial  types,  with  low  forehead,  bulging  cheeks 
and  heavy  chin  are  the  same  at  Bari  and  at  Modena.  In  both  the 
figures  are  of  the  same  stodgy  proportions,  with  heads  too  big  for 
their  bodies.  In  both  there  is  the  same  vigorous  and  plastic, but  not 
over-refined,  attack.  The  anatomy  and  drawing  of  the  nude  shows 
in  both  the  same  power  and  the  same  ignoring  of  physical  facts.  The 

^  The  armour  portrayed  on  the  portable  altar  of  the  school  of  Cologne,  now  in  the  Louvre 
(illustrated  by  Creutz,  15)  seems  to  be  of  a  type  later  than  that  of  Bari,  and  perhaps  also  later 
than  Angouleme. 

^  See  Porter,  Lombard  Architecture^  III,  35  f;  IV,  Plates  142,  143,  144,  145. 


THE  BARI  THRONE 


67 

supporting  figure  under  the  Deity  at  Modena  bends  his  legs  in  the 
same  curves,  and  carries  his  load  on  the  back  of  his  bowed  neck,  pre¬ 
cisely  as  do  the  supporting  figures  at  Bari  (Ill.  154).  Such  similari¬ 
ties  are  not  due  to  chance.  The  Bari  throne  is  by  a  master  distinct 
from,  I  think,  Guglielmo,  but  surely  closely  related  to  him. 

A  strange  piece  of  evidence  bearing  upon  this  question  has  been 
discovered  by  Mr.  Roger  Loomis.  He  has  observed  that  the  name 
Wiligelmus  signed  on  the  Modena  fagade  is  very  like  Wilgelmus, 
which  is  one  of  the  forms  of  the  name  used  upon  the  Bayeux  em¬ 
broidery.  From  this  he  concludes  that  the  sculptor  of  Modena  was 
a  Norman.  Now  nothing  in  the  art  of  Guglielmo  would  lead  us  to 
suppose  that  he  came  from  sculpture-less  Normandy.  If  his  name 
be  Norman,  it  must  be  that  he  was  a  Norman  of  Apulia,  with  the 
art  of  which  region,  we  have  seen,  his  style  shows  close  affinities. 

There  is  reason  to  suspect  that  the  architecture  of  the  cathedral 
of  Modena,  begun  in  1099,  was  influenced  by  that  of  Bari,  begun  in 
1087.  At  Modena  we  find  a  sharp  turning  away  from  the  vaulted 
type  of  church  which  had  been  in  use  up  to  that  date  in  Lombardy. 
The  introduction  of  a  wooden  roof  at  Modena,  the  design  of  the 
false  triforium  gallery,  the  columns  of  the  intermediate  piers  —  all 
features  hitherto  unaccounted  for  —  must  be  ascribed  to  the  in¬ 
fluence  of  S.  Niccola.^ 

On  the  other  hand,  there  is  every  reason  to  suppose  that  the  arch¬ 
itecture  of  S.  Niccola  was  influenced  by  Lombardy.  The  arched 
corbel-tables  must  have  been  thence  derived.  The  porches  are  later 
than,  and  presumably  copied  from,  those  of  Guglielmo  at  Modena.^ 
The  developed  crypt  is  a  Lombard  feature. 

There  are  other  analogies  between  the  art  of  Apulia  and  that  of 
Lombardy  which  must  be  taken  into  consideration.  If  we  compare 
the  capital  in  the  crypt  of  S.  Niccola  at  Bari  representing  lions 
(Ill.  1 51),  the  two  bodies  of  which  are  united  by  a  single  head  placed 
in  the  angle,  with  the  same  motive  on  the  pulpit  of  S.  Ambrogio  at 

^  See  my  article  in  Studies  in  Art,  Vol.  i,  No.  i. 

^  I  owe  to  one  of  my  students,  Mr.  H.  R.  Hitchcock,  Jr.,  the  observation  that  the  motive  of 
supporting  the  columns  on  corbels  is  derived  from  the  palace  at  Spalato. 


68  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

Milan  (Ill.  175),  we  shall  at  once  be  struck  by  the  similarity.  The 
motive  itself  is  peculiar  and  thoroughly  Lombard.  Furthermore, 
we  notice  that  the  mane  is  executed  according  to  the  same  conven¬ 
tion,  the  tail  is  twisted  about  the  legs  in  the  same  way,  the  eyes  and 
nose  are  similar.  Such  close  resemblances  are  not  due  to  chance ; 
the  two  works  belong  to  the  same  art. 

We  note,  moreover,  a  marked  analogy  between  the  supporting 
figures  of  the  Bari  throne  (Ill.  152)  and  the  supporting  figure  at  the 
angle  of  the  S.  Ambrogio  pulpit  (Ill.  175).^  The  lions  of  the  Bari 
throne  (Ill.  152)  are  very  analogous  to  the  one  above  a  capital  of  the 
S.  Ambrogio  pulpit  (Ill.  174).  Both  crouch  in  the  same  peculiarly 
flattened  position,  with  the  body  not  quite  touching  the  ground;  in 
both  the  tail  twist’s  around  the  hind  leg ;  in  both  the  body  is  very 
long ;  and  the  mane  of  the  S.  Ambrogio  lion  is  executed  by  the  same 
convention  as  that  of  the  lion  on  the  Bari  capital  (Ill.  151).  Finally 
we  notice  that  the  faces  of  the  Milan  pulpit  are  precisely  the  same 
as  those  of  the  Bari  throne. 

In  this  case  the  weight  of  evidence  seems  to  show  that  Lombardy 
derived  from  Apulia ;  for  the  lions  of  S.  Ambrogio  and  Bari  are  anal¬ 
ogous  to  the  lions  under  the  throne  of  Monte  S.  Angelo,  a  monu¬ 
ment  believed  to  date  from  the  XI  century.^  Indeed  the  indications 
are  that  the  idea  of  using  sculptured  animals  for  supports  and  also 
that  of  using  sculptured  human  beings  for  the  same  purpose  devel¬ 
oped  in  Apulia  earlier  than  in  Lombardy. 

It  is,  however,  probably  idle  to  debate  whether  Lombardy  antici¬ 
pated  Apulia,  or  Apulia  Lombardy.  What  seems  certain  is  that  be¬ 
tween  Lombardy  and  Apulia,  and  especially  between  Modena  and 
Bari  we  have  an  interlocking  relationship  such  as  we  shall  presently 
discover  between  Toulouse  and  Santiago.  There  were  influences 
back  and  forth  in  both  directions.  The  art  of  the  two  regions,  so 
widely  separated  geographically,  was  the  same. 

^  In  the  much  later  capital  of  Mozac,  in  Auvergne  (Ill.  1224),  the  position  of  the  arms  is  still 
the  same. 

^  Bertaux,  Ital.  Mer.,  449. 


THE  BARI  THRONE 


69 

Nor  is  it  at  all  clear  whence  this  Lombard-Apulian  art  is  derived. 
It  seems  to  appear  suddenly,  without  preparation,  in  both  regions. 

Like  so  much  Western  art,  it  was  undoubtedly  influenced  by 
Byzantium.  It  is,  I  suppose,  from  the  East  that  the  motive  of  sup¬ 
porting  figures,  so  prominent  in  Lombardy  and  Apulia,  is  ulti¬ 
mately  derived.  This  motive  is  found  as  early  as  the  IX  century  in 
the  Utrecht  Psalter,^  to  which  Graeven^  believes  that  it  came  from 
a  Byzantine  original.  A  supporting  figure  with  crossed  legs,  quite 
Lombard-Apulian  in  character,  and  labelled  TERRA  is  at  the  foot 
of  a  Crucifixion  on  a  book-cover  with  portraits  of  Otto  III  and  his 
mother  Theophano  (hence  dating  from  the  end  of  the  X  century).® 
Schlumberger  believes  that  this  book-cover  is  of  Byzantine  work¬ 
manship  ;  it  was  certainly  strongly  influenced  by  Byzantine  models. 
There  is  a  supporting  figure  at  the  base  of  the  Madrid  crucifix  of 
1063  (Ill.  654) ;  here  again  I  can  only  suppose  that  the  motive  is  due 
to  Byzantine  influence."* 

The  peculiar  convention  for  the  treatment  of  the  manes  of  the 
lions  and  horses  to  which  we  have  already  called  attention  in  Lom¬ 
bard-Apulian  works  I  suppose  also  to  have  been  derived  from  some 
lost  or  unknown  Byzantine  model.  It  is  found  in  Spain  at  a  very 
early  period.  We  notice  it,  for  example,  on  the  capitals  of  San 
Pedro  de  la  Nave,  a  church  which  has  been  called  Visigothic,  but 
which  is  more  probably  a  Mozarabic  construction  of  the  IX  century. 
The  same  manes  recur  on  the  Pamplona  ivory  box  of  1005,  and  on 
the  S.  Millan  Area  (Ill.  638-649). 

The  lioness  of  the  Bari  throne  (Ill.  155)  and  the  life-like  animals 
of  the  St.-Gilles  frieze  (Ill.  1316)  recall  the  animals  depicted  in  the 
mosaics  of  Kief,  which  date  from  1040^  and  the  naturalistic  tigers 

on  an  ivory  book-cover  of  the  British  Museum,®  executed  for  the 

1  Folio  57.  2  33-34. 

2  Illustrated  by  Schlumberger,  I,  440. 

*  A  supporting  figure  is  found  in  a  miniature  of  the  Gospels  of  Countess  Matilda,  a  dated 
manuscript'of  1098-1099  in  the  Morgan  Library,  illustrated  by  Warner  XXII.  But  this  man¬ 
uscript  seems  to  have  copied  sculpture  —  at  least  the  draperies  are  derived  from  the  Grado 
throne. 

®  Illustrated  by  Schlumberger,  III,  409. 

®  Egerton  MS.  1139,  illustrated  by  Dalton,  PI.  XVI. 


70  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

Angevin  court  in  Jerusalem  presumably  between  iii8  and  1131, 
and  showing  strong  Byzantine  and  Plantagenet  influences.  Nor  is 
it  probable  that  the  motive  of  lions  used  as  supports  originated  in 
the  Lombard-Apulian  school.  The  sarcophagus  of  Pelayo  at  Cova- 
donga  is  carried  on  two  crouching  lions. 

The  peculiar  spiral  curls  of  the  Bari  master  also  seem  to  be  de¬ 
rived  from  Byzantine  precedents.  Something  very  like  them  is 
found  in  a  Coptic  relief  of  St.  Menas  from  Thekla  ^  dating  from  the 
V  or  VI  century,  as  well  as  in  several  panels  of  ivory  from  the 
Grado  throne  ^  also,  it  appears,  a  Coptic  work  of  the  V  or  VI  cen¬ 
tury. 

The  peculiar  square  shape  of  the  wings  of  the  angels  at  Monopoli 
(Ill.  158-162)  recurs  on  capitals  of  the  cloister  at  Moissac  (Ill.  282) 
and  at  St.-Sernin  of  Toulouse  (Ill.  300).  Are  we  here  again  to  sup¬ 
pose  a  common  Byzantine  prototype  ® 

In  any  event  the  busts  of  angels  in  the  voussures  of  the  portal  at 
St.-Trophlme  of  Arles  (Ill.  1372)  must  be  of  Apulian  origin.  They 
are  dissimilar  to  any  voussure  sculptures  in  France,  but  like  those 
of  the  Monopoli  archivolt  (Ill.  1 58-162), except  that  they  are  placed 
parallel  to  the  voussures,  instead  of  radiating. 

^  Illustrated  by  Kaufmann,  65. 

^Published  by  Maclagen,  187. 

®  The  number  of  parallels  between  Monopoli  and  Spain  and  Aquitaine  is  certainly  striking. 
The  Christ  of  the  Deposition  in  the  architrave  of  Monopoli  (Ill.  1 57)  —  by  a  different  hand 
from  the  archivolt  —  is  exceedingly  like  the  Christ  of  the  Leon  crucifix  (Ill.  703)  and  that  of 
New  York  (Ill.  710). 


VI 

CLUNY 


The  church  of  the  abbey  of  Charlieu  was  consecrated  in  1094. 
this  building  there  still  exists  the  western  portal  (Ill.  4).  About  1140 
the  celebrated  outer  porch  (Ill.  108-110)  was  added.  A  comparison 
of  the  two  works  makes  it  obvious  that  the  inner  porch  is  in  style 
much  more  primitive  than  the  outer.  It  is  therefore  entirely  natural 
to  conclude  that  the  inner  portal  is  a  dated  monument  of  1094. 

However,  as  in  so  many  other  cases,  modern  archaeological  opin¬ 
ion  has  set  aside  the  documents,  and  concluded  that  the  style  of  the 
inner  portal  is  so  advanced  that  it  must  have  been  executed  after  the 
consecration  of  1094. 

I  confess  that  I  can  see  in  the  style  nothing  which  is  inconsistent 
with  the  date  of  1094  indicated  by  the  documents.  The  capitals 
which  still  survive  in  the  eastern  bays  of  the  ruined  nave  of  Charlieu 
are  precisely  like  those  still  in  place  on  the  exterior  of  the  absidial 
chapels  of  Cluny.  Cluny  begun  in  1088  was  consecrated  in  1095.  The 
absidial  chapels,  the  first  part  to  be  erected,  must  therefore  certainly 
date  from  1088-1095.  Charlieu,  consecrated  in  1094,  would  be  con¬ 
temporary,  and  in  fact  the  style  of  the  capitals  is  identical.  The 
agreement  of  the  external  and  internal  evidence  is  complete.  It 
would  indeed  be  a  strange  chance  if  both  documents  were  unreliable, 
and  both  churches  reconstructed  exactly  the  same  number  of  years 
after  their  consecration. 

Moreover,  the  style  of  the  older  tympanum  at  Charlieu  (Ill.  4)  is 
precisely  the  style  of  the  last  decade  of  the  XI  century.  Compare 
the  Christ  in  an  aureole  with  the  same  subject  in  the  Area  Santa  at 
Oviedo  (Ill.  657),  a  dated  monument  of  1075.  Notwithstanding  the 
obvious  differences,  easily  comprehensible  in  monuments  separated 
by  many  hundreds  of  kilometres,  it  is  clear  at  a  glance  that  the  two 


72  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

works  present  striking  analogies.  The  draperies  fall  in  the  same  zig¬ 
zag  edges. Above  the  feet  of  the  Christs,  the  draperies  in  the  two 
works  flare  out  in  precisely  the  same  manner.  There  is  the  same 
ropy  feeling  in  the  folds.  The  position  of  the  two  Christs  with 
spread-apart  knees  and  raised  right  hand  is  identical.  The  concep¬ 
tion  of  an  aureole  held  by  angels  is  the  same,  and  the  wings  of  the 
upper  angels  at  Oviedo  are  spread  out  to  fill  the  space,  just  as  are 
those  of  the  Charlieu  angels  to  fill  a  slightly  different  space.  I  can  see 
nothing  in  the  Charlieu  relief  inconsistent  with  the  style  of  the  last 
decade  of  the  XI  century  as  shown  by  the  Oviedo  Area  Santa.  In 
fact,  the  Oviedo  work  would  seem  if  anything  rather  later.  The 
lower  angels  in  contorted  positions  recall  those  which  we  shall  find 
in  Burgundian  sculpture  of  the  XII  century. 

The  draperies  of  the  tympanum  of  Charlieu  are  very  analogous  to 
those  of  the  Salerno  altar-frontal  of  1084. 

When  the  Christ  of  Charlieu  (Ill.  4)  is  compared  with  that  of 
Arles-sur-Tech  (Ill.  518),  a  dated  monument  of  1046,  it  is  seen  that 
the  two  are  strikingly  similar  in  composition.  This  is  evidently  the 
type  of  the  XI  century.  If  at  Charlieu  the  draperies  are  somewhat 
more  naturalistically  rendered,  that  is  easily  accounted  for  by  the 
half  century  which  separates  the  two  works. 

When  we  compare  the  Christ  of  Charlieu  (Ill.  4)  with  that  of 
Regensburg  (Ill.  1279),  dated  1049-1064,  we  find  an  even  more 
patent  analogy.  Here  the  draperies  are  rendered  by  a  convention 
which  is  different  from  that  of  Charlieu,  but  which  is  hardly  less 
realistic.  The  attitude  is  again  the  same,  with  spread-apart  knees, 
book  held  in  the  left  hand,  and  the  right  hand  raised  in  benediction. 


^  This  convention,  which  we  have  seen,  can  be  traced  as  far  back  as  Iberian  times  in  Spain 
(Ill.  637),  was  also  characteristic  of  archaic  and  archaistic  classical  sculpture.  It  occurs,  for 
example,  in  the  statue  of  Minerva  found  in  1902,  and  now  in  the  museum  of  Poitiers.  Some¬ 
thing  very  like  it  is  found  in  ivory  book-covers  of  the  Ada  group  in  the  Brussels  Museum  (illus¬ 
trated  by  Pelka,9i),and  in  the  vision  of  Ezekiel  in  the  XI  century  Bible  of  S.  Callisto  (illus¬ 
trated  by  Clemen,  63).  It  also  occurs  in  two  ivories  of  the  X  century  in  the  British  Museum 
illustrated  by  Dalton,  PI.  XXIV,  46.  It  is  found,  as  we  have  seen,  p.  57,  in  the  Virgin  of 
Sahagun  of  1099,  and,  as  we  shall  see,  in  the  works  of  Guglielmo  at  Modena  and  Cremona,  and 
at  St.-Sernin  of  Toulouse  (Ill.  319). 


CLUNY 


73 


The  throne  is  even  decorated  with  similar  little  openings,  which  are 
also  characteristic  of  the  throne  of  the  Christ  of  the  Oviedo  Area 
Santa  (Ill.  657).  In  view  of  the  fact  that  the  Regensburg  Christ  is 
known  to  date  from  the  fifth  or  sixth  decade  of  the  XI  century,  it 
seems  a  bold  assertion  to  say  that  the  style  of  the  Charlieu  tym¬ 
panum  is  such  that  it  must  have  been  executed  in  the  XII  century. 

Similarly,  when  we  place  the  Charlieu  Christ  (Ill.  4)  beside  the 
Christ  of  the  ambulatory  of  St.-Sernin  of  Toulouse  (Ill.  296),  a  monu¬ 
ment  which  really  does  date  from  the  early  years  of  the  XII  century, 
we  perceive  that  Charlieu  is  earlier.  The  draperies  are  simpler  and 
more  primitive;  the  modelling  is  less  elaborate;  the  throne  is  ren¬ 
dered  in  less  detail,  and  is  less  ornamented. 

I  have  therefore  no  hesitation  in  setting  down  the  Charlieu  tym¬ 
panum  as  an  authentically  dated  monument  of  1094,  in  using  it 
as  a  foundation-stone  for  the  study  of  the  chronology  of  Roman¬ 
esque  sculpture. 

The  question  arises  whether  the  lintel  of  Charlieu  is  contemporary 
with  the  tympanum.  The  style  is  certainly  different,  and  it  must  be 
admitted  that  the  two  are  not  by  the  same  hand.  I  do  not  think, 
however,  that  it  is  necessary  to  suppose  that  the  lintel  was  a  frag¬ 
ment  brought  from  an  earlier  church.  A  marked  difference  of  style 
in  contemporary  works  is  one  of  the]characteristics  of  Burgundian 
sculpture,  and  need  in  no  way  disquiet  us.  The  lintel  is  less  skilfully 
executed  than  the  tympanum,  but  the  style  does  not  appear  to  be 
essentially  more  archaic.  It  seems  probable  that  the  two  were  sculp¬ 
tured  about  the  same  time,  and  for  the  position  which  they  still 
occupy,  but  by  different  masters. 

The  style  of  the  Charlieu  tympanum  shows  analogies  with  the  art 
of  Lombardy  and  with  that  of  Aquitaine.  The  two  angels  holding  the 
mandorla  are  similar  to  the  Enoch  and  Elijah  of  Guglielmo  holding 
the  inscriptions  of  Modena  and  Cremona.^  The  gestures  are  the 
same,  the  draperies  have  the  same  zig-zag.  The  faces  of  Charlieu 
have  without  exception  been  mutilated,  but  in  the  fragments  that 

^  See  my  article  in  the  Gazette  des  Beaux  Arts,  LXI,  1919,  50-51. 


74  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

survive  one  seems  to  feel,  or  perhaps  rather  guess,  a  Guglielmo-esque 
character.  The  draperies  have  Guglielmo’s  heaviness  and  simplicity 
and  the  same  rope-like  treatment  occurs.  The  lintel  with  arches  re¬ 
calls  the  lintels  of  Piacenza,  Ferrara  and  Verona.^  Below  the  lintel 
at  Charlieu  are  two  very  Guglielmo-like  supporting  figures. 

On  the  other  hand,  a  relationship  with  Aquitaine  is  also  probable. 
The  lintel  with  apostles  foreshadows  that  of  St.-Sernin  (Ill.  308). 
The  type  of  Christ  we  have  already  seen  is  analogous  to  that  of  the 
St.-Sernin  ambulatory,  and  the  zig-zag  drapery  edges,  as  has  been 
remarked,  recur  at  Toulouse  (Ill.  319). 

These  similarities  perhaps  justify  the  inference  that  Charlieu,  an 
elder  daughter  of  Cluny,  may  have  exerted  considerable  artistic  in¬ 
fluence,  through  the  pilgrimages,  along  the  roads  to  Rome  and  Com¬ 
postela. 

The  tympanum  of  Charlieu  is  the  earliest  example  I  know  in  the 
West  of  the  motive  of  two  angels  holding  an  aureole  with  the  figure 
of  Christ,  sculptured  in  stone,  in  the  tympanum  of  a  church.  The 
theme  became  a  favourite  one  in  Burgundian  sculpture,  and  spread 
thence  all  over  Europe.  It  undoubtedly  came  to  Charlieu  from 
the  Orient. 

In  sculpture,  we  find  the  motive  in  the  Coptic  tympanum  of 
Daschlut,^  at  Mzchet  in  the  VII  century,®  and  at  Achthamar  in 
Armenia  ^  in  the  early  X  century.  A  Byzantine  stone  relief  of  the 
X-XI  centuries,  representing  the  twelve  festivals,  now  in  the  treas¬ 
ure  of  the  cathedral  of  Toledo,  has  a  rounded  top  in  which  Christ  is 
represented  between  two  angels  and  two  cherubim.  The  composition 
approaches  that  of  Charlieu,  except  that  there  is  no  aureole,  and 
Christ  holds  His  hands  down,  not  raised  in  blessing.  Finally  the  lin¬ 
tels  of  St.-Genis  (Ill.  513)  and  St.-Andre  (Ill.  514),  both  as  we  have 

^  A  propos  of  the  relationship  of  Guglielmo  with  France,  it  is  interesting  to  compare  the 
Enoch  and  Elijah  reliefs  of  Modena  and  Cremona  with  the  mosaic  representing  the  same 
prophets  at  Cruas  (illustrated  by  Revoil,  III,  PL  LXXVIII-LXXIX).  The  Cruas  mosaic  is 
dated  1098,  and  is  therefore  slightly  earlier  than  the  reliefs. 

2  Illustrated  by  Strzygowski,  Hell,  und  Kopt.  Kunst,  22. 

^  Illustrated  by  Strzygowksi,  Armen.,  433. 

^  Ibid.,  602. 


CLUNY 


75 

seen  executed  under  Byzantine  influence,  offer  evident  analogies 
with  the  Charlieu  composition. 

Among  ivories  we  find  the  motive  of  Christ  in  an  aureole  sup¬ 
ported  by  angels  in’ the  Barberini  ivory  of  the  Louvre,  an  Alexan¬ 
drine  work  of  the  IV-VI  centuries.^  With  this  should  be  compared 
the  Murano  ivory  of  the  same  period  in  the  Ravenna  museum. ^  The 
Ascension  of  the  Metz  group  in  the  Louvre  ^  vaguely  foreshadows 
lintels  and  tympana  like  Montceaux-l’Etoile  (Ill.  104).  The  aureole 
with  the  Deity  supported  by  two  angels  is  of  frequent  occurrence  in 
ivories  of  the  Ada  group,  which  are  admitted  to  be  strongly  in¬ 
fluenced  by  Byzantine  models.^  Angels  supporting  the  aureole  of 
Christ  are  found  in  a  Metz  group  ivory  of  Veste  Coburg  ®  of  the  X 
century,  in  another  of  the  same  period  at  St.-Paul  in  Karnthen  ®  in 
one  of  the  first  half  of  the  XI  century  in  the  Kunstgewerbe  Museum 
of  Cologne,^  in  another  of  the  same  period  in  the  museum  of  Rouen,® 
in  the  Evangelier  of  the  Abtissen  Theophanu,  in  the  Stiftskirche  of 
Essen,®  in  an  ivory  box  of  the  first  half  of  the  XI  century  at  Osna- 
bruck,^®  and  in  an  ivory  box  of  the  late  XI  century  at  Darmstadt. 

A  Mesopotamian  manuscript  of  586  gives  reason  to  believe  that 
the  motive  may  have  originated  in  the  scene  of  the  Ascension. 
Christ  in  an  aureole  is  a  theme  which  constantly  occurs  in  the 
Utrecht  Psalter;  He  is  often  accompanied  by  angels,  who  occasion¬ 
ally  even  hold  the  aureole.^®  A  similar  composition  is  found  in  the 
Chatsworth  Benedictional  of  St.-Aethelwold,  of  the  school  of  Win¬ 
chester  dating  from  c.  980. St.  Stephen  is  seen  in  an  aureole  sus¬ 
tained  by  two  angels,  and  placed  under  an  arch. 

Among  frescos  we  find  the  motive  in  Coptic  work  of  the  VI  cen- 
tury,i5  and  at  S.  Angelo  in  Formis  near  Capua  at  the  end  of  the  XI 


^  Diehl,  274 

®  Goldschmidt,  I,  No.  87. 
®  Ibid.,  I,  No.  87. 

^  Ibid.,  II,  No.  47. 

®  Ibid.,  II,  No.  29. 

Ibid.,  II,  No.  103  e. 

^  Folio  53  b. 

Diehl,  67. 


^  Ibid.,  283. 

^  Ibid.,  I,  Tafel  VIII-IX. 

®  Ibid.,  No.  90. 

8  Ibid.,  II,  No.  50. 

Ibid.,  II,  No.  102  e. 

Diehl,  235. 

Illustrated  by  Wilson  and  Warner,  folio  18. 


76  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

century.  The  latter  instance  is  especially  illuminating  because  the 
fresco  is  in  a  lunette  over  the  portal,  and  hence  very  closely  analogous 
to,  as  well  as  contemporary  with,  the  Charlieu  sculptures.  The 
Byzantine  influence  in  the  S.  Angelo  frescos  may  have  been  ex¬ 
aggerated,  but  is  admitted. 

In  view  of  all  this,  the  fact  of  Byzantine  influence  at  Charlieu 
seems  certain.  It  should  also  be  observed  in  this  connection  that 
there  are  traces  of  Byzantine  influence  in  later  works  of  the  Burgun¬ 
dian  school.  The  movement  and  fluttering  draperies  characteristic 
of  its  productions  are  anticipated  in  the  frescos  of  S.  Vincenzo  at 
Volturno  ^  which  are  dated  820-843.  The  spirit  of  such  works  seems 
to  have  found  its  way  into  ivories  as  well  as  sculptures  —  see,  for 
example,  the  book-cover  called  Franconian  of  about  1100  in  the 
Kaiser  Friederich  Museum  at  Berlin.^ 

The  Cluniac  ®  priory  of  Mont-St.-Vincent  has  a  sculptured  tym¬ 
panum  (Ill.  3)  which  appears  to  be  more  primitive  in  style  than  that 
of  Charlieu  (Ill.  4).  The  two  evidently  have  relationship,^  and  those 
who  believe  that  cruder  works  are  necessarily  earlier,  will  see  in 
Mont-St.-Vincent  the  prototype,  in  Charlieu  the  development.  It 
must  be  remembered,  however,  that  Mont-St.-Vincent  is  placed  on 
the  summit  of  a  picturesque  but  inaccessible  mountain.  In  the 
Middle  Ages,  mountain  art  seems  generally  to  have  been  retarded 
art.  We  shall  find  in  the  XII  century  that  mountainous  Auvergne 
followed  far  behind  advanced  Burgundy,  just  as  the  Pyrenees  lagged 
behind  the  plains  of  Toulouse  and  Spain,  and  the  Apennines  behind 
Tuscany  and  Lombardy.  It  may  therefore  very  well  be  that  in 
Mont-St.-Vincent  we  have  sculpture  which  is  merely  a  crude  and 

^  Illustrated  by  Rizzo  e  Toesca,  III,  410.  I  presume  that  these  most  important  frescos  still 
exist  in  situ.  In  April,  1921,  I  made  the  long  and  fatiguing  journey  to  see  them,  but  having 
reached  the  crypt,  found  it  locked,  and  all  access  denied.  It  was  said  that  the  keys  had  been 
carried  off  to  Naples  by  the  proprietor.  Apparently  no  one  had  visited  the  crypt  since  1912. 
The  frescos  have  been  photographed  by  the  Italian  government. 

^  Goldschmidt,  II,  No.  173. 

®  Marrier,  1706,1711. 

^  One  of  the  capitals  of  Mont-Saint-Vincent  is  exactly  like  a  capital  of  Charlieu.  Beneath 
the  lintel  there  is  also  a  console  with  supporting  figure. 


CLUNY 


77 

retarded  echo  of  earlier  models,  rather  than  an  art  which  is  genu¬ 
inely  archaic. 

Chateauneuf,  on  the  other  hand,  lies  in  a  region  where  there  is  no 
reason  to  expect  retardataire  forms.  The  lintel  (Ill.  2)  is  extraordi¬ 
narily  uncouth ;  if  we  grant,  as  I  think  we  must,  that  it  is  earlier  than 
Charlieu,  fifteen  years  is  the  least  that  we  could  allow  for  such  an 
amount  of  progress.  This  would  bring  the  Chateauneuf  lintel  to  1080 
or  earlier.  The  analogy  with  the  lintel  of  Charlieu  (Ill.  4)  is  obvious 
and  striking ;  this,  indeed,  seems  to  be  the  earliest  extant  example  of 
this  type  of  lintel,  in  which  a  series  of  figures,  usually  apostles,  are 
placed  in  a  row,  often  under  arches.  The  motive  which  may  well  be 
ultimately  derived  from  Early  Christian  sarcophagi  became  a  stand¬ 
ard  one  in  Burgundian  art,  and  spread  thence  to  Languedoc,  to 
Spain,  to  Lombardy,  to  Tuscany,  to  Apulia  and  to  northern  France. 

We  are  now  face  to  face  with  the  most  thorny,  and  also  the  most 
delightful,  problem  offered  by  the  history  of  Burgundian  art  —  the 
capitals  of  Cluny.  These  admirable  sculptures  have  been  much 
praised  from  an  aesthetic  standpoint,  but  they  will  never  be  praised 
sufiiciently.  They  are,  indeed,  one  of  the  masterpieces  of  art  of  all 
time.  The  extraordinary  delicacy  of  the  technique,  the  mastery  of 
line,  the  sureness  of  touch  are  unsurpassed,  even  by  the  paintings  of 
Simone  Martini  or  of  Botticelli.  In  comparison  the  portals  of  Char¬ 
tres  seem  to  lack  finesse  (Ill.  5-9). 

The  capitals  of  Cluny  are  a  striking  example  of  the  quality  that 
Mr.  Berenson  has  named  “illustration.”  Among  all  the  representa¬ 
tions  that  plastic  art  has  consecrated  to  music,  where  shall  we  find 
another  which  has  so  caught  the  very  spirit  of  song  ?  It  is  clear  that 
the  monks  of  this  abbey  loved  the  arts.  In  early  times  the  reform  of 
Cluny  did  not  perhaps  lack  that  austerity,  almost  puritanical,  which 
later  made  the  Cistercians  enemies  of  beauty.  A  taste  for  art  is  com¬ 
monly  the  first  step  on  the  road  to  Avernus.  Happily,  the  monks 
who  constructed  the  abbey  of  Cluny  had  already  journeyed  some 
distance  along  this  rose-embowered  path.  There  is  no  doubt  of  their 
enthusiasm  for  art. 


78  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

This,  indeed,  I  suspect,  is  expressed  in  the  capitals.  Cluniac  icon¬ 
ography  was  always  highly  complicated,  and  generally  offers  inten¬ 
tionally  something  of  an  intellectual  puzzle.  That  it  should,  was 
entirely  in  accordance  with  the  love  of  subtlety  characteristic  of  the 
order.  The  complete  meaning  of  the  Cluny  capitals  has  never  been 
unravelled,  and  may  perhaps  long  await  a  complete  solution.  The 
older  archaeologists  saw  in  certain  of  these  enigmatic  figures  the  arts 
of  metal-work,  miniature-painting  and  sculpture.  This  identifica¬ 
tion,  indeed,  is  supported  by  no  very  convincing  proofs,^  but  none 
more  satisfactory  has  yet  been  proposed. 

However  it  may  be  in  regard  to  the  other  fine  arts,  there  is  no 
doubt  that  the  sculptor  of  Cluny  has  represented  Music.  Indeed,  he 
dedicated  to  this  subject  eight  reliefs.  A  smaller  number  would  not 
have  sufficed  to  express  the  multiple  and  changing  character  of 
melody.  For  mediaeval  music,  of  which  the  sculptor  of  Cluny  has  so 
profoundly  understood  and  expressed  the  charm,  was  essentially 
melodic.  A  heritage  from  the  Greeks,  it  still  preserved  its  sim¬ 
plicity  and  freshness;  its  wings  had  not  yet  been  cut  by  the 
addition  of  complex  harmonies.  Mediaeval  music,  like  the  Greek, 
was  founded  on  modes,  each  of  which  possessed  a  peculiar  char¬ 
acter.  The  sculptor  of  Cluny  has  represented  music  in  its  eight 
different  modes. 

Compared  with  this  conception  of  music,  all  other  representations 
that  I  know  seem  flat  and  unprofitable.  I  shall  not  speak  of  modern 
works  —  that  would  be  an  unwarranted  cruelty  to  an  age  that  has 
already  too  much  lost  faith  in  itself ;  it  is  enough  to  turn  to  the  figures 
of  music  on  the  French  cathedrals  of  the  XIII  century.  The  merit  of 
these  sculptures  is  universally  conceded ;  yet  how  utterly  such  cold, 
lifeless  and  correct  virgins  striking  little  bells  fail  to  express,  like  the 
capitals  of  Cluny,  the  essence  of  the  art !  It  is  only  in  India  that  we 
find  representations  of  the  art  of  music  in  any  way  comparable  to 
those  of  Cluny.  The  Hindu  artists  also  loved  to  paint  the  eight 

*  Such  a  subject  hardly  recurs  in  mediaeval  art  until  Giotto’s  campanile  at  Florence :  yet 
at  Cluny  all  was  unique. 


CLUNY 


79 

modes.  They  have  left  us  drawings  of  great  inspiration.  But  the 
genius  of  the  sculptor  of  Cluny  is  far  superior.’^ 

The  fact  that  the  eight  modes  of  music  were  placed  in  the  choir  of 
the  abbey  of  Cluny,  in  parallel  with  the  four  rivers  of  Paradise,  the 
four  Virtues,  the  four  Winds,  and  beside  the  story  of  Adam  and  Eve, 
is  to  be  explained  not  only  upon  symbolic  grounds ;  such  were,  as 
M.  Male  has  recognized,  without  doubt  present  in  the  sculptor’s 
mind;  but  more  than  this,  we  are  justified  in  seeing  in  the  subject  a 
proof  of  the  high  esteem  in  which  the  art  of  music  was  held  by  the 
Cluniac  monks.  It  is  known  that  St.  Odon  wrote  a  dialogue  on 
music ;  and  to  him  other  treatises  on  the  same  subject  have  also 
been,  although  probably  erroneously,  attributed.^  There  is,  however, 
even  a  personal  touch  to  be  traced  in  the  music  capitals  of  Cluny. 
In  the  life  of  St.  Hugh  by  Gilon  ^  we  read  that  the  initiative  in 
the  construction  of  the  new  abbey  church  was  taken  by  Gunzo, 
whose  life  was  for  this  miraculously  prolonged  seven  years,  from 
1088  to  1095.  Now  these  seven  years,  in  which  Gunzo  was  the 
active  instigator  of  the  works  of  construction,  were  precisely  the 
ones,  as  we  shall  see,  in  which  the  ambulatory  was  built.  But,  this 
Gunzo,  we  are  told  by  Gilon,  was  an  accomplished  musician  — 
psalmista  precipuus.  We  easily  gather  that  it  was  Gunzo  who  in¬ 
spired  the  glorification  of  the  divine  art  in  the  choir  of  the  abbey 
of  Cluny. 

The  other  capitals  of  Cluny  are  no  less  fine  than  those  representing 
the  modes  of  music.  The  Four  Rivers  of  Paradise  (Ill.  5)  are  full  of 
the  spirit  of  water.  The  lines  flow  with  the  smoothness  of  a  swirling 
stream.  Compared  with  these  figures,  the  river-gods  of  Rome  seem 
coarse,  and  the  symbolic  figures  in  Christian  mosaics  inexpressive. 

^  To  appreciate  the  exceedingly  fine  quality  of  the  Cluny  capitals,  we  can  not  do  better  than 
to  compare  the  face  of  the  Third  Tone  (Ill.  7)  with  the  very  inferior  copy  on  the  column  from 
Coulombs,  now  at  the  Louvre  (Ill.  1472). 

^  A  manuscript,  containing  a  treatise  on  music  which  seems  to  have  relationship  to  the 
Cluniac  monasteries  of  Burgundy,  is  preserved  in  the  imperial  library  at  Vienna  (it  has  been 
illustrated  by  the  Soc.  Fr.  Rep.  Min.  Peint.,  1913,  PI.  XIX).  The  subject  of  the  miniatures 
recalls  the  capitals  of  Cluny,  but  the  style  is  rather  analogous  to  Autun. 

®  Mortet,  272. 


8o  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

The  delights  of  the  terrestrial  paradise  are  suggested  by  a  foliage  of 
incomparable  beauty. 

It  is  under  this  same  leafage,  watered  by  the  morning  dew,  fra¬ 
grant  with  the  perfume  of  the  fig  and  olive,  that  is  set  the  drama  of 
Adam  and  Eve.  It  is  an  incomparable  rendering  of  this  theme  so 
ancient,  but  for  the  artist  always  new.  The  yielding  to  temptation 
of  the  fascinated,  yet  terrified  couple ;  their  wistful  spying  from  the 
bushes  when,  in  the  cool  of  the  evening,  God  walks  in  the  garden ; 
each  act  of  the  tragedy  is  portrayed  with  subtle  and  profound  psy¬ 
chology.  The  nudes  are  drawn  with  the  tenderness  of  Masolino,  but 
the  understanding  of  character  suggests  rather  Sassetta. 

But  the  greatest  glory  of  the  capitals  of  Cluny  is  a  quality  that  has 
been  considered  a  defect.  They  are  admirably  mannered.  Mediaeval 
art  can  show  nothing  comparable.  In  an  age  of  manner,  these  are 
the  supreme  examples.^ 

The  troubled  question  of  the  date  of  these  masterpieces  must  now 
be  considered. 

St.  Hugh  began  to  build  a  new  abbey  church  at  Cluny  in  1088. ^ 
Seven  years  later,  in  1095,  advantage  was  taken  of  the  presence  of 
the  pope  Urban  II  in  the  monastery  to  celebrate  the  consecration  of 
the  high  altar.®  This  ceremony  is  represented  in  a  miniature  of  a 
manuscript  of  1188  formerly  belonging  to  St.-Martin-des-Champs. 
Here  the  choir  at  least  of  the  church  is  shown  as  completed.'* 

Gilon’s  life  of  St.  Hugh  states  that  that  abbot  built  the  church  in 
twenty  years,  and  that  it  would  have  been  astounding  if  an  emperor 


’  I  shall  return  to  this  subject  elsewhere. 

2  Plancher,  I,  302;  Mortet,  271. 

®  Praeterea  [Urbanus  II,  1905]  rogatus  a  domno  Hugone  ipsius  monasterii  venerabili  Abbate 
altare  majus  novae  basilicae,  astantibus  plurimis  Episcopis,  monachis,  clericis  quoque,  ac 
plebe  innumerabili,  in  honore  resurrectionis  Domini  nostri  Jesu  Christi  et  beatae  semper  vir- 
ginis  Mariae  sanctorumque  Apostolorum  Petri  et  Pauli  ac  protomartyris  Stephani  devotissime 
consecravit  VIII.  Kal.  Novembris,  indictione  IIII.  et  praecepit  ut  in  ipso  die  eadem  basilica 
oportuno  tempore  dedicaretur.  (Baluze,  VI,  474).  A  forced  and  unjustifiable  interpretation 
of  the  last  phrase  has  led  to  the  conclusion  that  in  1095  nothing  but  the  foundations  had  been 
built.  The  consecration  of  1095  was  also  recorded  in  a  lost  inscription  of  the  choir,  published 
by  Virey  in  Millenaire,  II,  247. 

This  miniature  is  reproduced  by  Haseloff,  in  Michel,  II,  i,  307. 


CLUNY 


8i 


had  constructed  so  great  an  edifice  in  so  short  a  timed  This  text  can 
only  be  interpreted  to  mean  that  the  church  was  practically  finished 
when  St.  Hugh  died  in  1109.  Mabillon,  who  saw  the  archives  while 
they  were  still  intact, says  that  the  church  was  built  in  twenty  years. ^ 
Dom  Plancher  states  that  the  church  was  actually  finished  in 
1112.^  An  inscription  in  the  choir,  now  destroyed,  but  a  copy  of 
which  has  been  published  by  Virey  ^  states  the  construction  lasted 
twenty-five  years  (1088-1113). 

St.  Hugh  in  1109  was  buried  in  the  choir  of  the  church  which  he 
had  constructed.^ 

In  1124  St.  Bernard  delivered  his  celebrated  harangue  against  the 
luxe  of  church-buildings.®  This  sermon  seems  to  have  been  aimed 
especially  against  the  newly  constructed  church  of  Cluny. 

The  church  was  certainly  entirely  finished  before  1125,  for  in  that 
year  the  vaults  fell.  Obviously  they  could  not  have  fallen  had  they 
not  been  built.  Besides,  the  text  which  tells  us  of  this  catastrophe, 
explicitly  mentions  that  the  church  had  recently  been  erected.^ 

Six  years  later,  the  damage  had  been  repaired,  and  the  completed 
church  was  consecrated  ®  by  the  pope  Innocent  II.  Although  the 
building  has  been  destroyed  almost  entirely,  it  is  still  easy  to  trace 
the  alterations  made  1125-1131.  The  original  vaults  had  been  semi¬ 
circular.  Until  the  XIX  century,  these  still  existed  in  the  choir.® 
They  were  replaced  by  the  pointed  vaults  which  may  yet  be  seen  in 

^  Incepit,  et  Deo  juvante,  talem  basilicam  levavit  intra  viginti  annos,  qualem  si  tarn  brevi 
construxisset  imperator,  dignum  admiratione  putaretur.  (Mortet,  273). 

^Tanta  basilica  .  .  .  opus  est  annorum  viginti.  (Mabillon,  V,  235). 

n,  512. 

^  Millenaire,  II,  246.  Major  ecclesia  est  opus  anno  XXV  constructore  sancto  Hugone. 

®  Ex  utraque  chori  parte  cernitur  ambo  unus,  in  quo  lectiones  olim  recitabantur.  .  .  .  Sub 
altari  matutinali  St.  Hugonis  abbatis,  immensi  que  istius  aedificii  auctoris,  tumulus  visitur  ab 
haereticis  violatus.  (Mabillon,  reprinted  by  Virey,  in  Millenaire,  II,  234). 

®  Mortet,  366. 

^(1125).  Ipsa  die  terribile  prodigium  illic  contigit.  Ingens  basilicae  navis,  quae  nuper 
edita  fuerat,  corruit;  sed,  protegente  Deo,  neminem  laesit.  Sic  pius  Dominus  omnes  pro 
temeraria  invasione  inspirata  ruina  terruit,  sua  tamen  omnes  immensa  benignitate  salvavit. 
(Oderici  Vitalis,  Ecclesiasticae  Historiae,  XII,  XXX,  ed.  A.  le  Prevost,  IV.,  426). 

*  Virey,  in  Cong.  Arch.,  LXXX,  73 ;  lost  inscription  in  the  choir,  published  by  Virey  in 
Millenaire,  II,  246. 

®  See  the  lithograph  of  Sagot,  reproduced  in  the  Millenaire  de  Cluny,  II,  PI.  III. 


82  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

the  transept.  It  is  certain  that  the  ambulatory  was  not  rebuilt  in 
1125-1131,  for  had  it  been,  pointed  arches  would  surely  have  been 
introduced,  as  in  the  rest  of  the  edifice ;  but  Sagot’s  lithograph  dis¬ 
tinctly  shows  that  all  the  arches  of  the  chevet,  including  that  of  the 
nave  vault,  were  semicircular. 

The  church  was  damaged  in  the  Revolution,  but  was  not  destroyed 
until  the  XIX  century,^ 

The  documents  therefore  are  clear  and  unequivocal :  the  choir 
begun  in  1088  had  been  built  in  1095  when  the  high  altar  was  conse¬ 
crated  ;  and  the  entire  building  was  finished  within  a  few  years  after 
the  death  of  St.  Hugh  in  1109,  that  is,  in  1112  or  1113. 

These  dates  show  that  the  church  of  Cluny  was  built  with  extraor¬ 
dinary  speed.  Until  the  construction  of  the  modern  St.  Peter’s  at 
Rome  Cluny  was  the  largest  church  in  Europe.  Yet  it  is  by  no  means 
impossible  that  it  should  have  been  constructed  in  twenty-five  years, 
or  that  the  choir  should  have  been  built  in  seven  years.  If  Cluny  was 
the  largest  church-building  in  Europe,  the  abbey  also  disposed  of 
unparalleled  resources.  Gilon  expressly  says  that  the  building  of  so 

*  En  1 81 1,  bien  que  la  main  des  utilitaires  eut  deja  disperse  et  vendu  les  pierres  du  temple, 
bien  qu’un  grand  chemin  coupat  deja  par  la  moitie  I’immensite  de  la  basilique,  cependant  trois 
enormes  clochers,  converts  en  ardoises,  et  brillant  de  loin  au  soleil;  le  grand  portail  surmonte 
de  sa  rose  et  encadre  entre  deux  grosses  tours  carries ;  quelques  arceaux  de  la  grande  nef  suspen- 
dus  dans  I’air  et  interrompant  la  vue  du  ciel  d’espace  en  espace :  les  colonnesdu  choeur  encore 
debout ;  I’abside  presque  intacte  avec  ses  vielles  peintures,  et  quelques  chapelles  des  bas-c6t6s, 
temoignaient  assez  de  la  splendeur  et  de  la  mesure  du  colossal  edifice.  .  .  .  Au  fond  du  vesti¬ 
bule  se  pr^sentait  le  portail  veritable  et  primitif  de  la  basilique;  ce  portail,  devenu  interieur, 
avait  20  pieds  de  hauteur  et  i6  delargeur.  Sesjambages  etaient  decords  de  huit  colonnes, 
quatre  de  chaque  cotd,  dont  les  intervalles  etaient  remplis  par  des  ornemens  riches  et  varids; 
trois  dtaient  d’un  seul  bloc.  .  .  .  Les  battans  de  la  porte  avait  dtd  reconverts  de  peintures. 
(The  lintel,  he  goes  on  to  state,  contained  twenty-three  —  recte  24?  —  figures,  doubtless  rep¬ 
resenting  elders).  Dans  le  tympan  du  portail  dominait  une  majestueuse  figure  assise,  tenant 
un  livre  de  la  main  gauche,  et  de  la  droite  donnant  sa  bdnddiction.  A  ses  cotds  dtaient  reprd- 
sentds  les  figures  symboliques  des  quatre  dvangdlistes,  et  quatre  anges,  portds  sur  des  nuages, 
embrassant  et  comme  supportant  le  mddaillon  ovale  dans  lequel  le  trone  du  Christ  dtait  en- 
fermd.  La  premiere  archivolte  qui  couronnaitle  bas-relief  se  composait  d’une  suite  de  petits 
cintres,  sous  chacun  desquels  dtait  des  anges  en  adoration,  hors  dans  celui  du  milieu  qu’occu- 
pait  le  Pdre  Eternel.  Deux  autres  archivoltes  concentriques  a  la  prdcddente  prdsentaient,  la 
premiere,  des  feuillages,  et  la  seconde,  des  mddaillons  d’ou  sortaient  des  tdtes  toutes  varides 
d’expression.  .  .  .  Sur  la  muraille,  comprise  entre  cette  galerie  supdrieure  et  les  cintres  du 
portail,  on  avait  sculptd  en  bas-relief  quatre  statues  d’apotres  d’environ  cinq  pieds  de  grandeur 
(Lorain,  writing  in  1839).  See  the  lithograph  of  the  portal  by  Sagot,  reproduced  in  the  Mil- 
lenaire,  II,  PI.  11. 


CLUNY 


83 

great  a  church  in  so  short  a  time  was  a  feat  which  no  emperor  would 
have  been  able  to  accomplish.  In  point  of  fact,  however,  the  speed 
was  not  greater  than  in  other  contemporary  buildings.  We  are  too 
apt  to  assume  in  Romanesque  constructions  the  interminable  de¬ 
lays  which  became  characteristic  of  building  in  the  Gothic  period. 
But  the  complicated  mouldings,  the  ubiquitous  decoration,  the  gen¬ 
eral  complication  which  made  building  slow  in  the  XIII  and  follow¬ 
ing  centuries,  had  in  the  XI  not  yet  been  invented.  And  in  fact  even 
great  churches  were  erected  at  this  time  with  astonishing  speed.  The 
basilica  of  Monte  Cassino,  one  of  the  most  important  churches  of 
Europe,  was  erected  in  the  space  of  five  years,  1066-1071.  In  this 
time,  not  only  was  the  church  constructed,  but  the  site  was  pre¬ 
pared,  by  planing  down  the  jagged  mountain-top.  Materials  had  to 
be  carried  500  metres  up  a  steep  mountain  side.  Columns  were 
brought  from  Rome  for  this  construction,  as  they  were  for  Cluny.^ 
Three  years  after  the  main  church  had  been  consecrated,  the  second¬ 
ary  church  at  Monte  Cassino,  S.  Bartolommeo,  was  dedicated.^ 

St.  Mark’s  at  Venice,  begun  in  1063,  was  eight  years  later  suffi¬ 
ciently  advanced  so  that  it  could  be  used  for  services.  The  abbey  of 
St.  Albans  in  England,  a  church  of  immense  size,  2,75  feet  long,  was 
built  in  eleven  years,  from  1077-1088.®  The  choir  of  Vezelay  was 
built  in  eight  years,  1096-1104.  The  choir  of  St.-Denis  was  erected 
in  four  years,  from  1140-1144. 

What  generally  delayed  mediaeval  constructions  was  not  the 
slowness  of  the  workmen,  but  lack  of  funds.  In  the  case  of  an  estab¬ 
lishment  like  Cluny  that  disposed  of  unlimited  resources,  work  could 
be  pushed  through  promptly.  It  became  a  matter  of  pride  that  it 
should  be. 

We  note,  moreover,  that  the  two  statements  that  the  choir  of 
Cluny  was  built  in  seven  years,  and  the  entire  church  was  built  in 
twenty-five  are  entirely  consistent  with  each  other.  From  the  accu- 

^  In  the  early  XI  century  columns  had  been  brought  from  Rome  for  St.-Benoit-sur-Loire. 
(Mortet,  34).  Later  Suger  planned  to  bring  some  for  St.-Denis. 

*  Bertaux,  Ital.  Mer.,  158. 

®  Perkins. 


84  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

rate  plan  published  by  M.Vireyd  we  learn  that  the  choir  was  almost 
exactly  one-fourth  the  length  of  the  entire  church.  Supposing  the 
same  rate  of  building  to  have  been  maintained  throughout  the  edi¬ 
fice,  it  would  consequently  have  required  one-fourth  of  twenty-five 
years,  or  a  little  more  than  six  to  construct  the  choir.  This  is  not 
very  different  from  the  seven  which  the  documents  tell  us  actually 
were  taken. 

The  documentary  evidence  that  the  choir  of  Cluny  was  built  be¬ 
tween  1088  and  1095  is  therefore  intrinsically  credible. 

It  has  nevertheless  been  set  aside  by  orthodox  archaeology. 

The  reason  for  doing  so  is  that  the  style  of  the  capitals  of  the  an¬ 
cient  ambulatory  now  preserved  in  the  Musee  Ochier  (Ill.  5-9),  is 
said  to  show  that  they  are  of  the  XII  century. 

The  matter  has  been  very  little  discussed,  and  no  one  seems  to 
have  felt  it  worth  while  to  show  why  the  style  could  not  be  that  of 
the  XI  century.  In  general  the  capitals  have  been  quickly  passed  by 
with  the  mere  statement  that  they  are  of  the  XII  century.  This 
vague  dating  at  least  possesses  the  advantage  of  a  certain  generosity. 
It  gives  a  lee-way  of  a  hundred  years.  Prudent  scholars  must  have 
felt  confidence  that  there  would  be  latitude  for  all  eventualities.  One 
can  not,  however,  help  feeling  a  certain  astonishment  that  one  of  the 
most  important  monuments  of  French  Romanesque  art  should  have 
been  left  in  this  indeterminate  position,  and  that  those  who  have  set 
aside  the  documents  indicating  a  date  in  the  XI  century  have  never 
stated  why  they  have  done  so,  nor  placed  the  capitals  of  Cluny  in  re¬ 
lation  with  the  monuments  of  the  XII  century  with  which  they  are 
said  to  be  contemporary. 

Let  us  suppose  that  the  orthodox  archaeologists  are  right,  and 
that  the  capitals  of  Cluny  date  from  the  XII  century.  Where  in  that 
century,  a  little  more  precisely,  may  we  place  them  ? 

Is  it  rather  to  the  first  or  to  the  second  half  of  the  century  that 
these  capitals  are  to  be  ascribed  ^  Their  delicacy  might  make  us  at 
first  think  of  monuments  of  about  1180.  We  should  perhaps  have  no 

^  In  the  Millinaire,  II,  230. 


CLUNY 


85 

great  difficulty  in  believing  them  part  of  that  wave  of  delicacy  in 
technique  that  spread  over  the  architecture  of  France  in  the  last  half 
of  the  XII  century,  and  culminated  in  the  south  transept  of  Soissons. 
However,  we  search  northern  figure  sculpture  in  vain  for  work  analo¬ 
gous  to  the  capitals  of  Cluny.  The  Cluny  artist  remains  different  and 
apart.  Whether  we  compare  Cluny  with  the  Toulouse  Annunciation 
(Ill.  480-485)  in  the  South,  or  with  Senlis  (Ill.  1505-1513)  in  the 
North,  or  with  the  tomb  of  St.-Lazare  at  Autun  in  Burgundy  (Ill. 
I47-149),  we  perceive  that  the  spirit  is  not  that  of  the  second  half  of 
the  XII  century  as  we  know  it  elsewhere.  In  fact,  after  the  construc¬ 
tion  of  the  western  portal  of  Chartres  in  the  fifth  decade  of  the  XII 
century,  figure  sculpture  abandoned  the  ideal  of  delicacy.  The  dra¬ 
peries  tend  to  become  ever  more  substantial,  the  folds  heavier,  the 
figures  more  ponderous.  It  is  the  Cistercian  frost  blighting  the  dainty 
wild  flowers  of  the  Cluniac  spring.  If  the  ideal  of  delicacy  touched 
for  a  moment  the  mouldings  and  capitals,  it  was  a  late  back-draft, 
without  real  analogy  to  the  sculptures  of  Cluny. 

The'  ascription  to  the  second  half  of  the  XII  century  must  there¬ 
fore  be  abandoned. 

M.  Vitry,  who  is  I  think  the  only  orthodox  archaeologist  who  has 
ventured  to  propose  a  definite  date  for  the  capitals  of  Cluny,  as¬ 
cribes  them  to  the  middle  of  the  XII  century. 

Since  no  specific  grounds  for  this  attribution  are  vouchsafed,  we 
can  only  test  its  accuracy  by  comparing  the  capitals  of  Cluny  with 
surely  dated  monuments  of  the  period  in  question.  Happily  we  need 
not  seek  far  to  find  such.  The  church  of  St.-Andre-le-Bas  of  Vienne 
preserves  two  capitals  dated  1152  by  an  inscription.  Since  Vienne  is 
geographically  not  very  far  separated  from  Cluny,  we  have  here  an 
excellent  opportunity  for  comparison. 

Put  the  Vienne  capital  representing  Job  (Ill.  1218)  beside  the 
Cluny  capital  representing  the  Third  Tone  (Ill.  7).  In  each  we  have 
the  figure  of  a  bearded  man  in  a  somewhat  similar  posture.  But  what 
a  vast  gulf  separates  the  two  works  !  Compare  the  naif  and  schema¬ 
tised  working  of  the  eye  at  Cluny  with  the  elaborate  and  conscious 


86  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

execution  at  Vienne ;  the  archaic  hair  and  beard  at  Cluny  with  the 
deeply  undercut  and  naturalistic  hair  and  beard  at  Vienne ;  the  un¬ 
modelled  face  of  Cluny  with  the  wrinkles  and  detailed  realism  of  the 
face  at  Vienne ;  the  simple  draperies  of  Cluny  with  the  elaborate  and 
deeply  undercut  folds  of  Vienne ;  the  schematised  ear  at  Cluny  with 
the  naturalistic  ear  at  Vienne.  Or  compare  the  modelling  of  the  nude 
as  shown  in  the  bare  leg  of  the  Vienne  Job  (Ill.  1218)  with  that  of  the 
Cluny  Rivers  of  Paradise  (Ill.  5).  In  the  one  we  have  an  almost  ex¬ 
aggerated  articulation  of  the  muscles,  a  realistic  rendering  of  the 
cords  and  even  veins,  in  the  other  no  attempt  to  reproduce  the  details 
of  anatomy.  See  how  much  more  realistic  are  the  hands  and  feet  at 
Vienne  than  at  Cluny.  We  notice,  too,  that  the  capital  at  Vienne 
is  full  of  plastic  feeling;  it  is  essentially  conceived  in  the  round; 
while  that  of  Cluny  is  essentially  flat,  a  translated  drawing.  It  is 
evident  that  Vienne  represents  the  end,  Cluny  the  beginning,  of  a 
tradition. 

The  capitals  of  Cluny  are  therefore  not  of  the  middle  of  the  XII 
century,  but  earlier. 

Shall  we  then  ascribe  them  to  the  second  quarter  of  the  XII  cen¬ 
tury  ?  The  naturalistic  foliage  makes  the  attribution  tempting.  It 
will  be  remembered  that  the  Gothic  artists  of  the  Ile-de-France  be¬ 
gan  about  1135  to  introduce  the  leaves  of  plants  into  their  capitals, 
and  thus  inaugurated  the  Gothic  decorative  style.  It  is  natural  to 
suppose  that  the  capitals  of  Cluny  reflect  this  same  movement. 
However,  as  we  compare  more  closely  the  Cluniac  foliage  with  that 
of  the  Ile-de-France,  the  analogy  which  we  had  believed  to  find  evap¬ 
orates.  The  Gothic  foliage  of  the  XII  century  is  strictly  architectural 
and  highly  conventionalized.  It  is  derived  from  the  ornamentation 
(perhaps  chance)  of  the  uncarved  leaves  of  a  Corinthian  or  Corin- 
thianesque  capital  and  from  capitals  of  the  XI  century  like  those  at 
Santiago  de  Compostela.  The  Cluny  capitals  on  the  other  hand 
show  the  close  imitation  of  actual  leaves  and  fruit,  represented  not 
conventionally,  but  realistically.  Even  the  purely  naturalistic  carv¬ 
ing  of  the  Flamboyant  period  can  hardly  show  such  exact  observa- 


CLUNY  87 

tion  of  nature ;  and  plant  forms  of  equal  beauty  were  hardly  attained 
again  until  Giotto  painted  the  Arena  chapel. 

To  find  a  real  analogy  for  the  naturalistic  foliage  of  the  Cluny  cap¬ 
itals  we  have  to  go  back  to  that  XI  century  with  the  style  of  which 
they  have  been  called  incompatible.  We  find  leaf  forms  and  animals 
very  like  those  of  the  Cluny  capitals  on  a  sculptured  column  in  the 
museum  of  Tschinili-Kiosk  at  Constantinople.^  This  is  certainly 
anterior  to  1100,  and  indeed  may  well  be  much  older.  There  is  leaf¬ 
age  similar  to  that  of  the  capitals  of  Cluny  on  a  capital  of  the  crypt 
of  the  church  of  S.  Niccola  at  Bari,^  dating  from  1090.  The  study  of 
natural  forms  is  one  of  the  striking  characteristics  of  the  Benedic¬ 
tine  art  of  Monte  Cassino  in  the  second  half  of  the  XI  century.^  From 
Monte  Cassino  this  characteristic  came  to  the  frescos  of  the  lower 
church  of  S.  Clemente  at  Rome  executed  between  1073  and  1084. 
Here  the  birds  and  fruit  of  the  dado,  and  the  fish  swimming  about 
the  submerged  chapel  are  among  the  most  realistic  achievements  of 
mediaeval  art,  in  spirit  entirely  similar  to  the  capitals  of  Cluny.  In 
view  of  the  many  bonds  between  Cluny  and  Rome  it  is  hardly  sur¬ 
prising  that  this  motive  should  have  been  borrowed  at  Cluny  from 
Italy.  From  the  capitals  of  Cluny  it  found  its  way  to  a  few  other 
French  monuments  of  the  early  XII  century;  to  the  cloisters  of 
Moissac  of  1100  (Ill.  279),  to  Vezelay  (1104-1120)  — Ill.  32  —  and 
to  Saulieu  (consecrated  in  1119)  —  Ill.  53- 

Among  the  monuments  of  the  second  quarter  of  the  XII  century 
there  is  therefore  none  which  shows  analogy  with  the  capitals  of 
Cluny.  But  when  we  come  down  to  the  first  quarter  of  the  century, 
we  begin  to  find  similarities. 

It  is  in  fact  not  only  in  the  foliage  that  the  capitals  of  Saulieu  are 
like  those  of  Cluny.  The  two  series  are  obviously  related  in  many 
particulars. 

^  Illustrated  by  Strzygowski,  Byz.  Bias,  der  Blut.,  Taf.  I,  II. 

^  Illustrated  by  Wackernagel,  Taf.  XVI  b. 

^  Les  peintres  du  Mont  Cassin  acquirent  une  virtuosite  qui  tenait  du  prodige.  En  quelques 
annees  de  travail  discipline  ils  apprirent  non  seulement  a  copier,  mais  a  regarder;  ils  melerent 
aux  imitations  des  figures  byzantines  de  veritables  etudes  d’apres  nature.  (Bertaux,  Ital. 
Mir.,  273). 


88  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

However,  when  we  compare  with  attention  the  capitals  of  Cluny 
(Ill.  5-9)  with  those  of  Saulieu  (Ill.  52-61)  we  can  not  but  be  con¬ 
vinced  that  Cluny  is  much  earlier.  The  foliage  of  the  Saulieu  capital 
of  the  Temptation  (Ill.  53),  for  example,  is  executed  with  an  insist¬ 
ence  upon  meticulous  detail  which  makes  that  of  the  Cluny  Rivers 
of  Paradise  (Ill.  5)  seem  very  primitive.  The  Saulieu  capitals  are 
much  more  plastic,  and  use  many  more  planes.  The  faces  are  far 
more  naturalistically  rendered.  Compare,  for  instance,  the  face  of 
the  angel  behind  Christ  in  the  Saulieu  Temptation  (Ill.  53)  with  that 
of  the  River  of  Paradise  at  Cluny  (Ill.  5).  Or  compare  the  Balaam 
at  Saulieu  (Ill.  56)  with  the  Third  Tone  at  Cluny  (Ill.  7).  It  is  clear 
that  the  Saulieu  sculptor  thinks  in  the  round,  in  three  dimensions; 
while  the  Cluny  master  thinks  only  in  two ;  that  the  Saulieu  sculptor 
is  stronger  and  more  vigorous,  while  the  Cluny  Master  is  more  subtle 
and  delicate ;  that  the  Saulieu  Master  is  more  naturalistic,  the  Cluny 
sculptor  more  archaic.  The  many  resemblances  abundantly  prove 
that  Saulieu  must  be  directly  or  indirectly  a  derivative  from  Cluny. 
In  view  of  all  this  it  seems  certain  that  Cluny  is  earlier,  and  notably 
earlier  than  Saulieu.  The  nave  of  the  latter,  which  is  the  only  part 
that  has  come  down  to  us,  was  presumably  begun  immediately  after 
the  consecration  of  the  choir  in  1119;  Cluny  must  then  be  notably 
earlier  than  1 1 19. 

According  to  the  documents,  a  consecration  was  celebrated  at 
Vezelay  in  1104.  It  is  probable  that  this  referred  only  to  the  choir 
which  no  longer  exists.  The  nave  which  has  been  preserved  to  us 
was  apparently  attacked  immediately  afterwards.  There  is  not  the 
slightest  evidence  that  the  fire  which  in  1120  injured  the  monas¬ 
tery  ^  occasioned  damage  to  the  structure  of  the  stone  and  vaulted 
church.  In  fact,  an  inscription  on  one  of  the  key-stones  explicitly 
states  that  the  church  was  only  damaged  bysmoke.^  The  Pilgrims’ 
Guide ^  written  probably  in  1129,  speaks  of  the  church  as  if  it  were 
finished.^  The  porch  and  the  narthex  were  completed  without  doubt 

^  See  de  Lasteyrie,  425. 

2  SVM  MODO  FVMOSA  SED  ERO  POST  HEC  SPECIOSA.  Illustration  by  Por^e,  17. 

2  In  quo  etiam  loco  ingens  ac  pulcherrima  basilica  monachorumque  abbatia  constituitur. 
{Miracula  S.  ’Jacobi,  IV,  8,  ed.  Fita,  29). 


CLUNY  89 

when  “the  church  of  the  pilgrims”  {Le.^  the  narthex)  was  consecrated 
in  1132  and  the  entire  basilica  was  finished  before  1138.^ 

Orthodox  archaeology  has  as  usual  set  aside  the  documents,  and 
declared  that  the  church  must  be  later. 

The  proof  is  supposed  to  be  the  transept  capital  representing 
Adam  and  Eve  (Ill.  28)  which  is  said  to  be  much  more  primitive  in 
style  than  any  other  capital  in  the  church.®  Since  this  capital  is  also 
broken,  it  is  identified  as  an  authentic  remnant  of  the  church  of 
1 104-1120 ;  its  presence,  it  is  believed,  suffices  to  show  that  the  exist¬ 
ing  nave  was  erected  after  the  fire  of  1120. 

Even  were  the  capital  in  question  earlier  than  the  others,  that 
would  not  prove  that  the  existing  church  might  not  be  of  1 104-1 120. 
An  earlier  fragment  might  as  easily  have  been  incorporated  in  a. 
building  begun  in  1104  as  in  one  begun  in  1120. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  however,  the  capital  in  question  is  certainly 
contemporary  with  the  others  in  the  church.  The  fact  that  it  is 
broken  means  nothing ;  before  the  restoration  many  of  the  capitals 
were  broken,  as  any  one  may  see  by  a  glance  at  the  fragments  in 
the  narthex.  This  particular  capital  is,  indeed,  by  the  hand  of  one  of 
the  easily  distinguishable  sculptors  at  Vezelay,  by  whom  are  also 
other  capitals  (see  for  example.  Ill.  29),^  which  no  one  has  ever 
thought  of  calling  primitive.  Neither  is  the  statement  that  the 
Adam  and  Eve  capital  was  not  made  for  its  present  position,  true  ; 
the  necking  fits  the  shaft  (Ill.  28)  perfectly.  If  the  abacus  appears 
too  large  for  the  capital  (Ill.  28),  it  is  because  the  broken  volutes 
of  the  bell  have  not  been  restored,  whereas  the  abacus,  which  was 
doubtless  also  broken,  has  been  remade.  The  volutes  once  filled  the 
now  vacant  angles,  precisely  as  in  the  capital  of  the  Death  of  Cain 
(Ill.  35).  The  Adam  and  Eve  capital  is  therefore  not  an  earlier  frag¬ 
ment,  but  certainly  sculptured  for  the  existing  church. 

^  Ch6rest,  197.  Note,  however,  that  there  was  a  church  of  St.  James  at  Vezelay,  so  that  the 
application  of  this  text  to  the  narthex  is  not  absolutely  certain.  For  a  discussion  of  the  dates, 
see  Cong.  Arch.,  LXXIV,  i~i ;  de  Lasteyrie,  425. 

^Por6e,  15. 

^  Michel,  I,  2,  638. 

*  Compare  the  head  of  the  female  figure  second  from  the  right  (Ill.  29),  with  the  head  of 
Eve  (Ill.  28). 


90  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

Moreover,  if  we  suppose  that  the  new  church  of  Vezelay  was  de¬ 
stroyed  in  1120,  we  are  forced  to  suppose  that  the  ruins  were  cleared 
away  and  the  great  nave  and  narthex  built  in  the  twelve  years  that 
elapsed  between  the  fire  and  the  consecration  of  the  narthex  in  1132. 
The  existing  church  is  entirely  homogeneous  ;  there  are  no  breaks 
nor  reconstructions  visible  in  the  masonry.  From  the  work  of  1104- 
1120,  according  to  the  orthodox  theory,  only  one  broken  capital  was 
saved.  Now  although  Romanesque  churches  were  undoubtedly  often 
built  more  rapidly  than  is  usually  believed,  it  is  hardly  credible  that 
the  nave  and  narthex  of  Vezelay  could  have  been  erected  in  only 
twelve  years. 

The  sculptured  key-stone  ^  is  a  dated  monument  of  1120,  for  the 
reference  to  the  fire  in  the  inscription  makes  it  certain  that  the  carv¬ 
ing  was  executed  immediately  after  that  event.  Now  the  style  of 
this  sculpture  is  evidently  more  advanced  than  the  style  of  the 
capitals  of  the  nave.  The  garments  have  ornamented  borders,  and 
folds  indicated  by  parallel  incised  lines,  features  lacking  in  the 
earlier  capitals  of  the  nave,  but  present  in  the  later  capitals  of  the 
narthex.  The  nave  capitals  are  therefore  earlier  than  this  dated 
sculpture  of  1120  ;  the  narthex  capitals  contemporary  with  it. 

There  are,  indeed,  many  proofs  that  the  nave  of  Vezelay  dates 
from  exactly  the  time  which  the  documents  would  lead  us  to  suppose. 
If  we  compare  its  sculptures  (Ill.  28-51)  with  those  of  Moreaux 
(Ill.  1067,  1068)  dated  about  1140  or  with  those  of  St.-Denis,  dated 
1137-1140  (Ill.  I437-1457,)  we  shall  be  convinced  that  they  are  ear¬ 
lier,  and  notably  earlier.  We  must  therefore  place  them  in  the  first 
quarter  of  the  XII  century.  That  they  are  earlier,  not  later  than 
1120,  may  be  proved  by  comparing  them  with  the  capitals  of  Sau- 
lieu,  begun,  as  we  have  seen,  in  1119.  Those  of  Vezelay,  and  espe¬ 
cially  of  the  more  eastern  bays  at  Vezelay  (Ill.  28,  3L  33,  42),  are 
distinctly  more  primitive  than  those  of  Saulieu  (Ill.  52-61).  The 
chronological  order  is  clearly:  Cluny,  Vezelay,  Saulieu. 

When  we  compare  the  capitals  of  Vezelay  with  those  of  Autun 

^  Illustrated  by  Poree,  17. 


CLUNY 


91 


(Ill.  67-79),  we  see  again  that  those  of  Vezelay  are  simpler,  less  de¬ 
veloped,  more  archaic.  Now  Autun  was  begun  about  1120.^  Again 
we  can  without  difficulty  establish  the  chronological  sequence : 
Cluny,  Vezelay,  Autun. 

If  we  compare  the  capitals  of  Vezelay  with  those  from  Moutier- 
St.-Jean  (Ill.  62-66)  now  in  the  Fogg  Museum,^  remnants  of  the 
church  built  by  the  abbot  Bernard  II  (i  109-1 133),^  we  perceive 
again  that  the  nave  of  Vezelay  is  earlier,  and  that  the  chronological 
sequence  runs:  Cluny,  Vezelay,  Moutier-St.-Jean. 

If  we  compare  the  capital  of  Vezelay  (Ill.  43)  representing  the 
Sacrifice  of  Bread  in  the  Old  Law,  with  Guglielmo’s  relief  of  Enoch 
and  Elijah  at  Modena,  dated  1099-1106,^  and  note  the  similarity  of 
the  figures  and  especially  of  the  faces,  we  shall  not  doubt  that  the 
existing  nave  of  Vezelay  is  the  one  begun  in  1104. 

If  we  compare  the  capital  of  Vezelay  (Ill.  33)  representing  Daniel 
with  the  capital  of  the  crypt  of  St.-Parize-le-Chatel  (Ill.  25)  repre¬ 
senting  the  sciapodes,  we  can  not  doubt  that  the  two  are  closely  re¬ 
lated  and  contemporary.  Now  the  capital  of  St.-Parize-le-Chatel 
is  dated  1113. 

A  point  of  support  for  dating  the  capitals  of  Vezelay  is  afforded 
by  the  sculptured  key-stone  representing  the  Church,  a  monument 
surely  dated  1 120  by  the  inscription.  Characteristic  of  this  sculpture 
are  the  ornamented  border  and  the  parallel  drapery  lines.  These 
features  are  found  only  in  the  later  capitals  of  Vezelay  in  the  western 
part  of  the  nave  and  in  the  narthex.  The  capitals  of  the  eastern  part 
of  the  nave  are  unmistakably  earlier  in  style,  therefore  anterior  to 
1120. 

A  comparison  of  the  capitals  of  Vezelay  (Ill.  28-46)  with  those  of 
Cluny  (Ill.  5-9)  shows  that  Cluny  is  the  earlier  of  the  two,  and  that 
the  capitals  of  Vezelay  are  in  fact  thence  in  part  copied. 

Take  for  example  the  famous  Adam  and  Eve  capital  at  Vezelay 

^  De  Fontenay  et  de  Charmasse,  408. 

^  I  have  published  these  capitals  in  the  Fogg  Museum  Notes,  1922,  I,  2,  23. 

®Plancher,  I,  516. 

*  Illustrated  in  the  Gazette  des  Beaux  Arts,  LXI,  1919,  50. 


92  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

(Ill.  28)  and  place  it  beside  the  capital  of  Cluny  representing  the  same 
subject.^  It  is  evident  at  a  glance  that  the  Cluny  rendering  is  much 
finer  and  more  subtle.  That  of  Vezelay  is  in  comparison  coarse  and 
commonplace.  But  it  is  no  less  evident  that  the  Cluny  capital  is 
earlier.  The  figures  at  Vezelay  are  more  articulated,  more  plastic. 
The  anatomy  is  far  more  realistically  rendered.  The  muscles  of  the 
calves  and  thighs  of  Adam  at  V ezelay  are  carefully  and  thoroughly, 
if  incorrectly,  expressed ;  at  Cluny  they  are  simply  ignored.  Eve’s 
breasts  at  Vezelay  are  portrayed  with  realism,  but  are  passed  by  in 
silence  at  Cluny.  The  faces,  the  eyes  and  the  hair  are  all  far  more 
naturalistic  at  Vezelay. 

Or  compare  the  Cluny  capital  representing  the  Rivers  of  Paradise 
(Ill.  5)  with  the  one  of  the  same  subject  at  Vezelay.^  The  relation¬ 
ship  of  the  two  is  evident.  There  are  the  same  volutes  ending  in  each 
case  in  a  flourish  of  foliage.  In  both  capitals  one  of  the  rivers  is  repre¬ 
sented  in  each  corner  as  a  naked  beardless  figure  crowned,  holding 
a  stream  in  his  hands.  The  convention  for  representing  the  flowing 
water  by  means  of  parallel  incised  lines  is  the  same.  Obviously  one 
of  these  capitals  must  be  a  copy  of  the  other.  As  to  the  relative  qual¬ 
ity  we  can  not  for  a  moment  be  in  doubt.  The  delicacy,  refinement 
and  charm  which  make  of  the  Cluny  fragment  one  of  the  master¬ 
pieces  of  mediaeval  art  have  disappeared  at  Vezelay.  It  is  clear  that 
Cluny  is  the  inspired  original,  Vezelay,  the  commonplace  copy.  It 
is  equally  clear  that  Vezelay  shows  a  style  later  in  date.  The  work 
there  is  bolder,  coarser,  more  plastic,  more  deeply  undercut.  The 
faces  are  more  naturalistic,  more  modelled  and  show  greater  feeling 
for  the  third  dimension.  The  crown  which  is  simple  at  Cluny,  is 
given  at  Vezelay  a  gratuitous  ornament. 

The  foliage  of  the  Cluny  Rivers  of  Paradise  capital  (Ill.  5)  should 
be  compared  with  that  of  the  hunting  capital  at  Vezelay  (Ill.  32). 
The  sculptor  of  Vezelay  seems  here  to  have  taken  over  directly  the 
Cluny  vine;  but  his  design  is  coarser,  less  decorative.  And  note 

*  Illustrated  by  Terret,  PI.  XLV. 

^  Illustrated  by  Pouzet,  105.  jj 


CLUNY 


93 

again  that  the  Vezelay  figures  are  more  modelled,  more  naturalistic, 
but  less  beautifuld 

Let  us  continue  the  comparison  to  the  two  capitals  representing 
the  Four  Winds  (Ill.  31).^  The  similarity  is  again  striking.  There 
are  the  same  volutes,  the  same  foliage,  the  same  four  figures  crouch¬ 
ing  over  the  same  bellowses,  and  these  bellowses  are  indicated  by  the 
same  convention  of  wattling.  Since  the  Winds  are  thus  represented, 
to  the  extent  of  my  knowledge,  nowhere  else  in  mediaeval  art,  there 
can  be  no  question  of  the  direct  connection  between  Cluny  and  Veze¬ 
lay.  Again,  however,  we  notice  that  Cluny  is  both  simpler  and  of 
higher  quality.  How  much  broader  and  more  beautiful  is  the  treat¬ 
ment  of  the  draperies,  how  much  more  delicate  the  feet !  The  grace 
and  daintiness  of  Cluny  are  coarsened  at  Vezelay;  the  greater  elab¬ 
oration  of  the  draperies,  the  stronger  plastic  feeling  are  powerless  to 
compensate  for  the  verve  that  is  lost.  In  this  case,  moreover,  we 
have  absolute  proof  that  Cluny  is  the  original.  The  iconographic 
program  is,  as  we  have  remarked,  unusual.  There  is  no  especial 
reason  why  it  should  have  been  introduced  at  Vezelay  among  capi¬ 
tals  representing  unrelated  subjects.  At  Cluny,  on  the  other  hand, 
it  was  logically  included  in  the  parallel  between  the  eight  Tones,  the 
four  virtues,  the  four  seasons,  the  four  Rivers  of  Paradise. 

Now  let  us  put  the  Vezelay  Luxury  (111.34  a)  beside  the  Cluny 
Rivers  of  Paradise  (Ill.  5).  The  general  similarity  of  the  figures  is 
again  striking.  The  position  is  very  similar;  the  right  arms  are  held 
in  the  same  attitude,  the  legs  are  very  like.  The  serpent  of  the  Veze¬ 
lay  figure  has  lines  which  resemble  those  of  the  river  at  Cluny.  Again, 
however,  we  notice  the  same  differences.  Vezelay  is  larger  in  scale 
and  coarser ;  the  fine  crispness  of  Cluny  has  disappeared ;  the  foliage 
so  dainty  and  fresh  at  Cluny  has  at  Vezelay  become  rank;  the  hair 
so  broad  and  simple  at  Cluny  at  Vezelay  is  more  elaborate,  but 
hardly  as  effective. 

^  This  capital  was  imitated  at  Notre-Dame-du-Port  of  Clermont-Ferrand  (Ill.  1174).  Facilis 
decensus  Averno  ! 

*  The  Cluny  capital  is  illustrated  by  Terret,  Plate  LVI. 


94  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

Or  take  the  Vezelay  capital  representing  Daniel  (Ill.  33).  This  is 
a  strange  iconographic  conception  —  the  placing  of  Daniel  in  an 
aureole  would  be  singular,  but  the  putting  of  the  lions  also  in  one 
is  astounding.  There  can  be  no  question  that  the  sculptor  was  here 
solely  occupied  with  reproducing  the  decorative  effect  produced  by 
the  aureoles  of  the  Cluny  capital  of  the  Tones  (Ill.  7).  How  clumsy 
and  uninspired  this  Vezelay  capital  is,  however,  compared  with  the 
glorious  original !  How  heavy  and  badly  proportioned  the  body, 
how  commonplace  the  face,  how  inexpressive  the  draperies !  The 
figure  of  Daniel,  indeed,  is  imitated  not  from  the  Cluny  capital  of 
the  Tones,  but  from  that  of  the  Sacrifice  of  Isaac  (Ill.  10).  The 
hair  and  face  of  Daniel  recall,  in  fact,  the  angel  to  the  right  of  the 
Cluny  capital.  In  other  words,  two  distinct  models  by  different 
hands  are  copied  and  combined  in  a  single  capital  of  Vezelay.  One 
could  hardly  ask  for  more  eloquent  proof  that  Vezelay  is  a  deriv¬ 
ative  of  Cluny. 

It  is  interesting  to  follow  the  further  fortunes  of  this  motive.  It 
reappears  at  St.-Benoit-sur-Loire  (Ill.  1415)  and  Rieux  Minervois 
(Ill.  14O4).  Something  very  like  it  was  found  in  a  capital  of  Savigny, 
which  I  know  only  from  the  drawing  published  by  Dalmace.^  Judg¬ 
ing  on  this  insecure  basis  I  should  suppose  that  the  capital  in  ques¬ 
tion  was  derived  from  Cluny  rather  than  from  Vezelay,  for  another 
capital  of  the  same  series  seems  to  show  unmistakably  the  direct  in¬ 
fluence  of  Cluny.  Since  the  church  of  Savigny  was  in  construction 
in  the  last  years  of  the  XI  century,  this  analogy  is  another  indication 
of  the  early  date  of  Cluny. 

It  was  undoubtedly  the  capital  of  Vezelay,  however,  that  is  copied 
in  a  capital  of  St.-Nectaire  representing  the  martyrdom  of  St. 
Sebastian.2  The  aureole,  the  position  of  the  figure,  the  draperies,  the 
hair  are  all  taken  from  the  Vezelay  capital  of  Daniel;  but  since  the 
subject  required  an  archer,  the  St.-Nectaire  sculptor  hunted  about 
the  Burgundian  abbey  until  he  came  upon  the  figure  of  an  archer  in 
the  capital  representing  the  Death  of  Cain  (Ill.  35).  This  he  then 

^  407.  ^  Published  by  Brehler. 


CLUNY 


95 

reproduced  nearly  without  changes.  We  have  here,  therefore,  clear 
proof  of  the  genealogy  Cluny,  Vezelay,  St.-Nectaire. 

One  of  the  striking  facts  which  become  evident  from  the  compari¬ 
son  of  the  capitals  of  Cluny  and  Vezelay  is  that  the  easternmost,  and 
therefore  presumably  earlier  capitals  at  Vezelay,  are  the  ones  which 
are  most  nearly  like  Cluny.  Among  the  numerous  hands  which  may 
be  distinguished  at  Vezelay  it  is  that  which  I  have  ventured  in  the 
atlas  to  distinguish  by  the  name  of  “Cluny  master”  who  shows  the 
closest  affinities,  and,  indeed,  in  general  contents  himself  with  repro¬ 
ducing  the  models  of  Cluny  (Ill.  30,  31, 32,  33).  Now  the  work  of  this 
master  is  found  only  in  the  nave,  and  often  rather  far  east  in  the 
nave.  On  the  other  hand,  the  “Bathsheba  master”  (Ill.  44),  who 
worked  on  the  western  bays  of  the  nave  and  on  the  narthex  still  cop¬ 
ies  Cluny,  but  in  a  different  way.  Compare,  for  example,  his  work  at 
Vezelay  with  the  Grammar  of  Cluny  (Ill.  6).  He  seeks  to  reproduce 
the  spirit  rather  than  the  letter  of  his  great  original.  Certain  details 
of  the  folds  of  the  draperies,  or  of  the  shoes  we  find,  indeed,  taken 
over ;  but  what  impresses  us  is  how  this,  the  greatest  of  the  Vezelay 
sculptors,  has  caught  the  line,  the  grace,  the  delicacy  of  his  master. 
It  is  a  calamity  that  the  deplorable  restoration  of  Viollet-le-Duc  has 
left  us  only  copies  and  scrapings  of  the  work  of  this  artist.  In  what 
remains,  however,  it  is  abundantly  evident  that  his  style  in  its  more 
developed  articulation,  in  the  freedom  of  the  drawing,  in  the  realism 
of  the  faces,  in  the  greater  elaboration  of  the  draperies  belongs  to  a 
later  age  than  that  of  Cluny. 

From  all  this  it  seems  certain  that  Cluny  is  anterior  to  Vezelay, 
and  consequently  to  1104. 

Let  us  now  examine  whether  the  style  of  Cluny  is  really  inconsist¬ 
ent  with  a  date  in  the  XI  century. 

Certainly  among  the  striking  characteristics  of  the  Cluny  capitals 
are  their  feeling  for  line,  and  their  daintiness  of  execution.  We  have 
found  that  in  these  qualities  the  capitals  are  hardly  equalled  in  the 
XII  century,  even  in  works  directly  inspired  by  Cluny.  But  it  is  easy 
to  find  parallels  of  the  last  quarter  of  the  XI  century.  Put  the  capi- 


96  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

tals  of  Cluny  (Ill.  5-9)  beside  the  sculptures  of  Santo  Domingo  de 
Silos  (Ill.  666-673).  The  spiritual  relationship  of  the  two  works  is 
at  once  evident ;  there  is  the  same  sense  of  line,  the  same  refinement, 
the  same  delicacy,  the  same  crispness.  The  folds  of  the  draperies 
although  different,  fall  in  similar  broad  curves ;  the  zig-zag  edges  are 
alike.  The  faces  in  both  are  archaic  and  unindividualized.  The 
letters  of  the  inscriptions  are  generally  similar.  The  raised  hand  of 
God  in  the  Adam  and  Eve  capital  of  Cluny  is  the  same  dainty,  un¬ 
articulated  XI  century  hand  which  we  have  learned  to  know  at  Silos. 
Moreover,  we  notice  that  the  subtle  rhythm  so  characteristic  of  Silos 
is  also  a  conspicuous  merit  of  Cluny.  The  hair  convention  of  the 
Third  Tone  at  Cluny  (Ill.  7)  is  the  same  as  the  hair  convention  used 
at  Silos,  as  is  also  the  beard  convention  of  the  same  figure.  We  notice 
that  the  curious  boots  of  the  Cluny  capitals  (Ill.  6)  reappear  in  the 
Silos  Deposition  (Ill.  669)  and  in  the  Madrid  Virgin  of  Sahagun 
— 1089-1099 —  (Ill.  770). 

Delicacy  like  that  of  Cluny  is  also  to  be  found  in  the  miniatures  of 
the  Greek  Physiologus  of  Smyrna,  edited  by  Strzygowski,  a  manu¬ 
script  dating  from  about  iioo. 

Such  delicacy  is,  moreover,  characteristic  of  the  Benedictine  art 
of  Monte  Cassino  of  the  second  half  of  the  XI  century,  and  it  is, 
indeed,  probably  from  here  that  it  came  to  Cluny.  We  find  it,  for 
example,  in  the  frescos  of  the  lower  church  of  S.  Clemente  at  Rome 
(1073-1084),  with  which  Cluny  presents  so  many  other  analogies  as 
well ;  and  also  in  the  Last  Judgment  of  S.  Angelo  in  Formis,  painted 
in  the  last  quarter  of  the  XI  century. 

The  peculiar  convention  for  representing  the  undersleeve  in  the 
Cluny  capital  of  Summer  with  a  series  of  rings  like  bracelets,  is  char¬ 
acteristic  of  the  XI  century.  It  is  found,  for  example,  in  the  Area  of 
San  Millan  (Ill.  638)  and  in  the  Oviedo  Area  Santa  of  1075  (Ill.  657). 

The  elongation  of  the  figures  characteristic  of  the  capitals  of  Cluny 
(Ill.  5,  6)  also  accords  with  a  date  in  the  XI  century.  M.  Diehl  has 
supposed  that  the  mannerism  originated  in  the  mosaics  of  the  dome 
of  Sta.  Sophia  of  Salonica,  of  the  first  half  of  the  XI  century,  and 


CLUNY 


97 


that  it  was  here  instituted  to  oflF-set  the  effects  of  fore-shortening.  I 
should  question  the  explanation,  for  there  is  an  example  of  marked 
attenuation  in  the  miniature  representing  Christ  in  the  house  of 
Mary  and  Martha  in  the  Perikopenbuch  Kaiser  Heinrichs  II,  which 
was  executed  before  1014.^  It  is  probable,  however,  that  the  motive 
originated  in  the  Orient,  for  it  is  found  in  a  statue  of  Kwannon,  be¬ 
lieved  to  be  Korean,  in  the  Museum  at  Nara,  and  dating  from  the 
VII  century. 

In  the  second  half  of  the  XI  century,  and  especially  in  the  last 
quarter  of  that  century,  the  motive  was  taken  up  by  the  school  of 
Monte  Cassino.  It  occurs  in  the  miniatures  of  an  unpublished  manu¬ 
script  which  I  have  seen  in  the  library  of  the  abbey. ^  It  also  is  found 
in  the  Last  Judgment  of  S.  Angelo  in  Formis,  painted  in  the  last 
quarter  of  the  XI  century,  although  it  is  absent  in  the  earlier  frescos 
of  the  same  church.  It  is  similarly  very  prominent  in  the  frescos  of 
the  lower  church  of  S.  Clemente  at  Rome,  executed  before  1084.^  It 
is  found  in  a  miniature  of  the  Bible  of  S.  Paolo  at  Rome,  now  in  the 
Vatican.^  By  the  beginning  of  the  XII  century  the  idea  had  spread 
throughout  Europe;  we  find  it  in  English  miniatures  of  Bury  St. 
Edmund’s,®  in  Austrian  miniatures  of  Salzburg  ®  and  in  the  Greek 
Physiologus  of  Smyrna.^ 

The  wattling  convention  used  to  represent  the  folds  of  the  socks 
on  the  capitals  of  Cluny  (Ill.  7)  is  one  of  the  peculiarities  of  the  style, 
which  was  hence  widely  copied  in  Xll-century  sculpture.  The  mo¬ 
tive  may  have  been  originally  suggested  by  the  thonging  of  the  feet 
and  ankles  common  in  miniatures.®  I  know  of  no  earlier  instance  of 

^  Illustrated  by  Leidinger,  V,  34. 

^  Homilae,  No.  98,  H. 

^  Cf.  Bertaux,  Ital.  Me’r.,  276 ;  Dans  les  oeuvres  de  technique  aisee,  comme  la  miniature  et  la 
peinture  murale,  les  proportions  des  figures  commencerent  a  prendre,  sous  le  gouvernement  de 
I’abbe  Oderisius  {i.e.,  in  the  late  XI  century)  un  allongement  qui  s’exagera  bientot  de  fagon 
ridicule  {sic). 

^  Moscioni  photograph,  8014. 

®  Illustrated  in  the  Burlington  Catalogue,  PI.  23,  28. 

®  Perikopenbuch  von  St.-Erentrud,  Munich,  Kgl.  Hof-  und  Statsbibliothek,  No.  Clm.  15903. 

^  Ed.  Strzygowski. 

*  See  for  example  the  Bible  of  Charles  le  Chauve  in  the  Bibliotheque  Nationale  at  Paris;  a 


98 


ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 


the  use  of  this  mannerism  in  the  West ;  it  is,  however,  found  in  the 
colossal  bronze  statue  of  B arietta,  believed  to  represent  the  emperor 
Heraclius  and  to  have  been  executed  in  the  VII  century.  The  use  of 
the  motive  at  Cluny  was  consequently  not  entirely  without  prece¬ 
dent. 

It  may  be  objected  that  the  arches  which  appear  in  the  main  ar¬ 
cades  of  the  surviving  transept  of  Cluny  are  pointed,  and  therefore 
inconsistent  with  the  early  date  indicated  by  the  documents.  In 
point  of  fact,  the  arches  of  the  ambulatory,  which  is  the  portion  of 
the  church  with  which  we  are  here  concerned,  are  shown  as  round  in 
Sagot’s  lithograph;^  but  were  they  pointed,  I  should  not  be  dis¬ 
quieted.  Pointed  arches  were  in  fact  known  in  the  XI  century.  In¬ 
deed,  they  are  used  as  early  as  the  IX  century  in  the  Orient,  as  in  the 
mosque  of  Ibn  Tulun  at  Old  Cairo,^  and  are  frequent  in  the  archi¬ 
tecture  of  Armenia  of  the  X  century.®  Apparently  about  the  middle 
of  the  XI  century  the  motive  found  its  way  into  France  at  St.-Front 
of  Perigueux.  A  few  years  later,  between  1063  and  1095  we  find  it  in 
the  narthex  of  St.  Mark’s  at  Venice.  Contemporaneously  it  appears 
in  the  cathedral  of  Pisa  (begun  in  1063).^  Still  another  example  is 
extant  in  the  porch  of  S.  Angelo  in  Formis,  dating  from  the  seventh 
decade  of  the  XI  century.  That  the  pointed  arch  should  therefore 
have  found  its  way  to  Cluny  by  1088  is  neither  impossible  nor  even 
surprising. 

It  should  be  observed  that  the  legs  of  the  Adam  on  the  capital  of 
Cluny  are  modelled  very  similarly  to  those  of  the  Christ  of  the  Ma¬ 
drid  crucifix,  a  dated  work  of  1063  (Ill.  654). 

The  capitals  of  Cluny  and  Vezelay  are,  beyond  any  possible 
doubt,  inspired  chiefly  by  manuscripts,  or  a  manuscript  of  the 
school  of  Winchester.  This  delightful  type  of  English  illumination 
came  out  of  the  Psalter  of  Utrecht,  which  is  now  thought  to 
have  been  produced  at  or  near  Reims  in  the  first  third  of  the  IX 

Monte  Cassino  MS.  of  the  late  XI  century  illustrated  by  Bertaux,  Ital.  Mir.,  203;  the  Bari 


Exultet,  etc. 

^  Millenaire,  II,  PI.  III. 
^  Ibid.^  232. 


^  Rivoira,  Arch.  Mus.,  144. 
Rizzo  e  Toesca,  550. 


CLUNY 


99 


century.^  The  school  of  Winchester  did  not  attain  its  zenith,  how¬ 
ever,  until  the  second  half  of  the  X  century.  It  came  to  an  end 
with  the  Norman  conquest  in  1066. 

Now  the  capitals  of  Cluny  and  Vezelay  show  all  the  characteristics 
of  drawing  of  the  miniatures  of  this  school.  The  facial  types  are  the 
same,  and  this  is  the  more  striking  that  they  are  highly  distinctive. 
Compare,  for  example,  the  beardless  faces  of  Vezelay  (Ill.  28-46) 
with  the  miniature  of  1016-1020  illustrated  by  Herbert,^  or  those  of 
Cluny  (Ill.  5-10)  with  the  gospels  of  Besangon  ^  or  the  Rouen  mis¬ 
sal.^  The  close  relationship  is  obvious.  The  bearded  as  well  as  the 
beardless  faces  of  the  capitals  approach  very  closely  the  Benedic- 
tional  of  St.  Aethelwold,  a  dated  manuscript  of  c.  980.^  Compare  es¬ 
pecially  such  faces  as  that  of  the  St.  Anthony  of  the  Vezelay  narthex 
(Ill.  42).  The  St.  Paul  on  folio  8  of  the  manuscript  is  like  the  St.  Paul 
of  the  “mill”  capital  of  Vezelay  (Ill.  40)  even  to  the  peculiar  shape 
of  his  head. 

The  draperies  fluttering  behind,  so  characteristic  of  the  Burgun¬ 
dian  school,  are  found  in  the  Benedictional  of  St.  Aethelwold,  which 
dates  from  980,  in  a  miniature  representing  Christ  in  glory.®  The 
spiral  folds  of  the  drapery,  typical  of  Burgundian  sculpture,  are 
taken  over  from  the  same  source,  and  perhaps  originated  in  Car- 
lovingian  manuscripts.  This  convention  in  a  miniature  has  a  certain 
meaning,  for  it  seeks  to  indicate  the  spherical  form  of  certain  por¬ 
tions  of  the  anatomy ;  in  sculpture  it  becomes  purely  decorative,  for 
the  form  is  already  indicated  by  the  relief.  Nothing  could  prove 
more  clearly  the  dependence  of  the  sculptures  upon  the  miniatures 
than  the  taking  over  of  this  singular  convention.  The  clinging  dra¬ 
peries  introduced  into  Burgundian  sculpture  are  similarly  derived 

^  Erst  die  von  Fleury  vermittelte  und  von  Mannern  wie  Dunstan,  Aethelwold  und  Oswald 
in  den  sechziger  Jahren  in  Siid-England  eingefuhrte  Cluniacensische  Reformbewegung  hat,  wie 
es  scheint,  den  gewaltigen  kiinstlerischen  Aufschwung  herbeigefuhrt,  dem  wir  eine  solche  Fiille 
von  Meisterwerken  verdanken.  (Homburger,  7). 

2  PI.  XIII. 

^  Homburger,  Taf.  VI. 

'•  Ibid.,  Taf.  X. 

^  Illustrated  by  Warner  and  Wilson. 

®  Homburger,  I. 


loo  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

from  the  same  source,  in  which  they  are  constantly  used.  The  slen¬ 
der  long  feet  and  hands,  characteristic  of  the  sculptures  of  Autun 
(Ill.  67-81)  are  found  in  the  Benedictional  of  St.  Aethelwold.  In  the 
Benedictional  of  Rouen  ^  is  represented,  as  in  the  tympanum  of 
Vezelay  (Ill.  47-49),  Pentecost.  The  apostles  are  seated  about  a 
curved  table  as  at  Charlieu  (Ill.  no).  The  edicular  canopies  so 
typical  of  Burgundian  sculpture  appear  in  this  miniature  as  in  one 
of  the  Benedictional  of  Paris.  The  calligraphic  quality  of  Burgun¬ 
dian  drawing  is  evidently  derived  from  the  delicate  outlines  in  pen 
of  the  miniaturist.  There  are  the  same  lyric  curves,  the  same  caress¬ 
ing  outlines.  The  motive  of  crossed  legs  appears  in  the  Besangon 
gospels.  The  Bodleian  gospels  ^  have  flirted  garments  and  attenu¬ 
ation.  Flying  angels,  agitated  draperies,  aureoles,  movement,  con¬ 
torted  postures,  revealing  draperies,  fluttering  scarfs  quite  of  the 
Burgundian  manner,  are  found  in  the  charter  of  King  Edgar  to  New 
Minster,  Winchester,  a  manuscript  dated  966.^  The  strange  lower 
borders  of  the  garments  in  the  Benedictional  of  St.  Aethelwold  re¬ 
appear  in  the  capitals  of  Cluny ;  there  are  the  same  loops,  and  the 
lower  folds  are  over-turned  similarly.  The  peculiar  oval  folds  about 
the  knees  of  certain  figures  of  Cluny,  like  the  Grammar  (Ill.  6)  are 
precisely  like  those  of  the  Xl-century  miniature  of  St.  John  in  the 
manuscript  of  Lord  Leicester.^  The  flat  folds  of  Burgundian  drap¬ 
eries  are  anticipated  in  a  south  Anglo-Saxon  manuscript  of  the  XI 
century,  the  Bede  of  St.  Petersburg  ®  and  in  the  gospel  of  St.  Gallen.® 
There  was,  therefore,  nothing  new  in  the  artistic  formula  used  by 
the  sculptor  of  Cluny.  He  merely  translated  into  stone  the  types  of 
singular  beauty  perfected  long  before  by  the  miniature  artists  of 
Winchester.  When  we  look  at  the  capitals  of  Cluny  from  this  point 
of  view,  we  are  not  at  all  surprised  that  they  should  have  been  exe¬ 
cuted  in  the  XI  century.  We  have  seen  abundant  evidence  that  the 

1  Homburger,  VI.  Ibid.,  XI. 

^  Brit.  Mus.  Cotton  MS.  Vespasian  A.  VIII,  f.  2  b,  illustrated  in  British  Museum  Reproduc¬ 
tions  from  Illuminated  Manuscripts,  Series  I,  PI.  IV. 

^  Dorez,  Catalogue,  PI.  III. 

®  Lat.  Q.  V.  I,  n.  18,  fob  26  b,  illustrated  by  Zimmermann,  332. 

®No.  51,  p.  267,  illustrated  by  Zimmermann,  188. 


CLUNY 


lOI 


artists  of  the  XI  century  were  fully  masters  of  their  chisels.  There 
is  no  reason  why  they  could  not  express  in  stone  what  they  had  long 
been  accustomed  to  express  with  their  pen.  We  perceive,  too,  why 
it  is  that  Romanesque  sculpture  was  never,  in  any  true  sense  of  the 
word,  archaic.^  It  was  not  forced  to  pass  through  that  struggle  with 
material  form  which  fell  to  the  lot  of  other  periods. 

The  style  of  the  capitals  of  Cluny  is,  therefore,  in  entire  agreement 
with  the  documentary  evidence  that  they  were  executed  between 
1088  and  1095. 

Before  leaving  the  subject  of  the  capitals  of  Cluny,  the  air  should 
be  cleared  of  a  myth  which  has  been  widely  circulated  in  regard  to 
them.  Orthodox  archaeologists  unwilling  to  admit  that  they  date 
from  the  XI  century,  yet  having  too  much  conscience  to  disregard 
entirely  the  documentary  evidence  that  the  church  was  constructed 
from  1088-1113,  have  often  suggested  the  hypothesis,  nay,  asserted 
as  an  obvious  fact,  that  the  capitals  were  carved  long  after  having 
been  placed  in  the  building.  This  theory  has  been  applied  to  other 
monuments  as  well ;  and  as  it  has  been  made  a  basis  for  the  late 
dating  of  much  Romanesque  sculpture,  it  will  be  well  to  remind 
the  reader  that  mediaeval  sculptures  were  carved  before  they  were 
placed. 

The  question  has  already  been  investigated  by  Prof.  Voge  in  one  of 
the  most  fundamental  passages  of  his  fundamental  work.^  His  re¬ 
searches  have  made  it  perfectly  clear  that  in  the  Romanesque  period 
sculpture  was  executed  before  the  blocks  were  set  up  in  the  building. 

The  evidence  accumulated  by  Prof.  Voge  on  the  subject  is  quite  con¬ 
clusive.  Since,  however,  certain  scholars  have  continued  to  date  mon¬ 
uments  on  the  opposite  theory,  it  may  be  well  to  add  further  proofs. 

There  are  extant  a  number  of  representations  of  mediaeval  mas¬ 
ters  at  work.  At  Maastricht  ®  and  in  the  cloisters  of  the  cathedral  of 
Gerona  ^  we  see  masons  sculpturing  blocks  before  they  are  placed 
in  the  building.  Whether  in  these  cases  we  have  to  do  with  the  carv- 


^  I  owe  this  observation  to  Mr.  Berenson. 
^  Ligtenberg,  Taf.  XXIII. 


^  Anf'dnge,  267  f.  i 
^  Michel,  II  I,  256. 


102  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

ing  of  capitals  or  reliefs,  or  only  with  the  squaring  of  dressed  blocks 
is  not  altogether  clear.  There  is  no  doubt,  however,  that  in  two  rep¬ 
resentations  at  S.  Zeno  of  Verona,  and  in  others  at  S.  Maria  Mag- 
giore  of  Bergamo,  at  Modena,^  in  the  museum  of  Toulouse  ^  and  at 
San  Cugat  del  Valles  ®  we  have  represented  the  making  of  capitals. 
All  these  show  that  the  capitals  were  sculptured  in  the  atelier,  and 
when  held  reversed  between  the  knees  of  the  sculptor,  or,  as  at  San 
Cugat  and  Toulouse,  placed  horizontally  before  him.  The  reliefs  at 
Bergamo  are  late  —  I405  —  but  they  are  of  particular  interest  be¬ 
cause  they  show  a  sculptor  touching  up  a  finished  capital  after  it  had 
been  placed.  This,  as  Prof.  Voge  has  recognized,  was  doubtless  also 
the  custom  at  an  earlier  period.  A  Byzantine  miniature  ^  represent¬ 
ing  the  construction  of  a  building,  shows  that  capitals  were  carved 
before  being  placed,  but  touched  up  afterwards.  A  fresco  of  Benozzo 
Gozzoli  in  the  Pisa  Campo  Santo  shows  that  the  practice  of  executing 
sculpture  before  placing  the  blocks  in  the  building  continued  until 
the  XV  century ;  the  builders  at  work  upon  the  tower  of  Babel  are 
hoisting  into  position  the  already  carved  architectural  decorations. 
The  evidence  is  conclusive ;  mediaeval  sculptures  were  executed  in 
the  atelier,  and  merely  touched  up  after  being  placed  in  position. 

Indeed,  the  excellent  craftsmanship  displayed  by  mediaeval  capi¬ 
tals  could  hardly  have  been  attained  if  the  sculptor  had  been  obliged 
to  work  upon  the  stone  in  the  disadvantageous  position  in  which  it 
was  fixed  after  being  placed  in  the  building.  We  have  only  to  exam¬ 
ine  the  care  and  skill  with  which  Romanesque  sculpture  is  executed, 
to  be  convinced  that  the  artists  must  have  taken  advantage  of  every 
means  of  securing  technical  excellence.  In  this  connection  the  experi¬ 
ence  of  the  builders  at  Bryn  Athyn  is  instructive.  At  first  the  capi¬ 
tals  were  carved  after  being  placed  in  the  modern  manner ;  but  it  was 
soon  found  that  the  technical  perfection  of  mediaeval  work  could  be 
imitated  only  if  the  sculptor  were  enabled  to  work  the  capital  at  his 

*  For  all  these,  see  my  Lombard  Architecture^  I,  14. 

®  Illustrated  by  Revoil,  III,  26. 

^  Puig  y  Cadaf^alch,  II,  61, 

*  Illustrated  by  Diehl,  369. 


CLUNY  103 

ease,  turning  it  as  he  pleased.  The  system  was  therefore  changed, 
and  now  capitals  are  carved  before  they  are  placed. 

An  examination  of  almost  any  capital  of  the  XII  century  will  show 
that  the  sculptor  was  able,  during  the  execution,  to  place  the  capital 
so  as  to  give  a  blow  with  his  chisel  from  any  angle  or  direction  de¬ 
sired.  It  is  clear  that  much  of  the  work  was  done  with  the  capital 
upside  down,  and  held  below  the  level  of  the  eye  of  the  artist.  Capi¬ 
tals  were  in  general  intended  to  be  looked  up  at ;  but  obviously  it 
would  be  exceedingly  difficult  for  the  artist  to  work  them  above  his 
head.  By  holding  them  upside  down  below  his  eye,  he  was  able  to  see 
them  in  the  same  relative  position  in  which  they  would  be  seen  when 
finished,  and  still  work  at  them  with  ease. 

The  evidence  of  the  buildings  themselves  re-enforces  that  which 
we  have  drawn  from  representations  of  masters  at  work.  In  the  mon¬ 
astic  buildings  of  Marcilhac  are  twin  capitals  (Ill.  1145)  set  side  by 
side.  The  faces  of  these  capitals  which  nearly  touch  are  carved  with 
the  same  finesse  as  the  other  faces.  Now  these  interior  faces  not  only 
can  hardly  be  seen,  but  it  would  have  been  physically  impossible  to 
insert  a  chisel  to  sculpture  them  in  the  narrow  space  between  the  two 
capitals.  They  were  then  sculptured  before  they  were  set  in  position. 
Similar  instances  abound  in  mediaeval  work. 

In  the  portal  of  Romans  (Ill.  1335)  are  inserted  in  either  jamb  a 
pair  of  sculptured  figures.  These  piers,  one  suspects,  were  originally 
carved  for  a  cloister,  and  later  diverted  to  their  present  position ;  but 
however  that  may  be,  one  of  the  figures  on  each  side  faces  diagonally 
in  against  the  wall.  Now  these  figures  are  completely  finished,  even  in 
the  surfaces  which  nearly  or  actually  touch  the  face  of  the  wall.  It  is 
consequently  certain  that  they  were  sculptured  before  they  were  setup. 

In  the  northern  upper  lunette  at  Corme  Royal  (Ill.  1013)  is  a 
sculptured  voussure.  It  is  evident  that  owing  to  a  miscalculation 
there  was  not  space  enough  to  fit  in  the  two  upper  figures.  Accord¬ 
ingly  a  slice  has  been  sawed  off  the  head  of  each  to  accommodate  the 
sculpture  to  the  space  available.  Clearly  then  these  reliefs  must  have 
been  made  before  being  placed. 


104  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

At  S.  Ambrogio  of  Milan,  in  the  portal,  is  a  capital  with  inscription 
inserted  upside  down.  It  is  clear  that  by  error  two  capitals  were 
made  for  the  right-hand  side  of  the  door.  In  order  to  make  one  fit 
the  left-hand  side,  it  had  to  be  put  in  up-side  down.  The  existence  of 
such  a  mistake  shows  that  capitals  were  carved  before  being  placed 
in  position,  since  otherwise  it  could  not  have  occurred. 

Often  capitals  forming  an  iconographic  sequence  are  inserted  out 
of  order,  as  for  example,  in  the  cloister  of  the  cathedral  of  Gerona.^ 

Had  it  been  the  custom  to  carve  capitals  after  they  were  placed, 
we  should  certainly  find,  in  view  of  the  slow  and  frequently  much 
delayed  progress  habitual  in  mediaeval  building,  numerous  edifices 
with  capitals  of  a  much  later  period  than  the  architecture,  or  in 
which  the  capitals  had  remained  unfinished  to  our  own  days.  Now 
there  is  nothing  of  the  sort.  I  know  of  no  instance  of  a  mediaeval 
church  with  capitals  carved  at  a  much  later  period  than  the  date  of 
the  structure  itself.  I  have  never  seen  a  church  of  the  XII  century 
with  capitals  of  the  XIII  or  XIV  century.  We  have  a  great  number 
of  churches  begun  in  the  XII  century,  left  unfinished,  and  completed 
only  in  the  Gothic  period  or  perhaps  not  at  all.  In  every  one  of 
these,  the  capitals  of  the  Romanesque  portions  are  Romanesque ;  we 
look  in  vain  for  an  example  of  a  capital  in  the  Romanesque  portion 
of  the  building  finished  in  the  Gothic  style.  What  we  do  find  rarely, 
are  capitals  left  either  partially  or  entirely  unfinished.  One  of  these 
for  example  exists  at  Auinay,^  another  in  the  gallery  of  Notre-Dame 
of  Paris.  I  have  observed  several  examples  in  Auvergne,  at  St.- 
Menoux,  St.-Genou,  etc.  A  superficial  criticism  has  concluded  that 
the  existence  of  such  unfinished  capitals  proves  that  carving  was 
executed  after  capitals  were  placed.  But  what  justifies  such  a  con¬ 
clusion  Aside  from  the  fact  that  many  of  these  so-called  unfinished 
capitals  are  really  not  unfinished  at  all,  but  have  merely  lost  their 
original  painted  decoration,  it  is  as  easy  to  suppose  that  a  capital 
which  was  left  unfinished  was  intended  to  be  carved  in  the  chantier 
as  in  position.  When  the  masons  had  to  place  a  capital  in  the  church, 

'  Puig  y  Cadafalch,  III,  241-242.  ^  Cong.  Arch.,  1913,  I,  p.  100. 


CLUNY 


105 


before  they  could  proceed  to  the  construction  of  the  arch  above,  it 
must  inevitably  have  happened  at  times  that  a  slow  workman  had 
not  completed  the  carving  of  the  capital.  Suppose  that  it  would  take 
him  two  weeks  more  to  finish  it.  Either  the  entire  construction 
would  have  to  be  delayed  two  weeks,  and  the  masons  kept  idle,  or 
the  capital  would  have  to  be  inserted  partially  finished.  The  latter 
expedient  was  occasionally  adopted.  The  very  fact  that  these  capi¬ 
tals  remained  unfinished  may  be  interpreted  as  an  indication  that 
capitals  were  carved  before  being  placed ;  otherwise  they  could  easily 
have  been  completed  afterwards. 

It  was  probably  precisely  with  a  view  to  avoid  blocking  the  con¬ 
struction  by  obliging  the  masons  to  wait  for  the  completion  of  carved 
members,  that  such  were  generally  executed  at  the  very  beginning 
of  the  construction.  An  instructive  example  has  recently  come  to 
light  in  the  church  of  the  Annunciation  at  Nazareth. ^  A  Xll-century 
church  was  here  in  building,  when  the  construction  was  brusquely 
and  forever  interrupted,  presumably  by  the  advance  of  the  Saracens. 
Excavations  have  brought  to  light  the  mediaeval  chantier,  which 
was  in  the  hands  of  European,  and  doubtless  French,  builders.  We 
see  a  Romanesque  church  in  the  actual  building.  The  foundations 
have  barely  been  laid ;  only  the  base  moulding  of  the  portal  is  in  posi¬ 
tion.  Yet  the  elaborately  and  beautifully  sculptured  capitals  of  this 
portal  are  almost  completed;  most  of  them  are  entirely  finished,  on 
one  alone  there  lack  a  few  touches.  It  is  certain  that  here  the  capi¬ 
tals  were  executed  not  only  before  being  placed,  but  even  before  the 
building  had  been  begun.  It  was  only  in  this  way  that  danger  of 
blocking  the  masons  by  obliging  them  to  wait  for  the  work  of  the 
sculptors  could  be  avoided. 

In  the  abbey  of  S.  Trinita  at  Venosa,  in  Apulia,  we  have  another 
admirable  opportunity  to  study  the  building  methods  of  the  XII 
century.  This  great  building  (Ill.  167-171)  has  remained  half  con¬ 
structed.  We  see  that  it  was  built  not  in  vertical  sections,  but  in 
irregular  horizontal  sections.  The  piers  of  the  nave  have  some  of 

’  Egidi. 


io6  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

them  been  built  and  crowned  with  entirely  finished  capitals;  but  the 
archivolts  were  never  placed  upon  them.  As  far  as  the  construction 
has  gone,  not  a  bit  of  the  decoration  is  unfinished.  It  is  clear  that 
here  again  the  sculpture  was  executed  before  it  was  placed.  In  fact, 
capitals  and  lions,  carved  for  this  building,  but  never  used,  still  exist 
in  the  neighbourhood  in  considerable  abundance  (Ill.  170,  171).  The 
side  portal  (Ill.  169)  is  completely  finished  in  the  most  minute  detail, 
although  not  a  stone  of  the  clerestory  has  been  laid. 

Indeed,  not  only  capitals,  but  all  architectural  sculptures,  tym¬ 
pana,  friezes,  voussures  or  incidental  reliefs  were  executed  before 
being  placed.  In  voussures,  a  single  subject  was  commonly  sculp¬ 
tured  on  each  stone,  for  convenience  in  setting  up,  but  often  also  a 
single  subject  runs  over  more  than  one  block.  In  such  cases  the  re¬ 
liefs  were  carved  just  the  same  way  in  the  atelier,  were  then  taken 
apart,  and  put  together  again  when  they  were  set  up  in  the  building. 
Reliefs  of  considerable  size  almost  always  occupy  more  than  one 
block.  A  careful  inspection  of  any  Romanesque  tympanum  will 
bring  to  light  evidence  that  the  stones  were  sculptured  in  the  chan- 
tier,  and  assembled  in  the  construction  already  carved.  There  is  a 
particularly  clear  example  at  Donzy  (Ill.  1 14).  Here  the  block  to  the 
right  of  the  three  of  which  the  tympanum  is  composed  has  been 
badly  placed,  so  that  the  level  of  the  background  projects  beyond 
that  of  the  other  two  blocks.  This  fault  is  concealed  by  bevelling 
the  edge  of  the  projecting  block.  Such  an  error  could  only  have  oc¬ 
curred  in  sculptures  carved  before  being  placed. 

It  is  sure  that  random  bits  of  sculpture  inserted  in  the  fagades  of 
churches  like  S.  Michele  of  Pavia  or  of  the  church  at  Champagne 
(Ardeche)  must  have  been  executed  before  being  placed.  Along  the 
pilgrimage  route  and  in  Spain,  it  seems  to  have  been  the  custom  to 
accumulate  great  quantities  of  sculpture  before  the  construction  was 
begun.  Either  there  was  no  very  definite  plan  as  to  how  this  was  to 
be  used,  or  else  the  scheme  was  changed  before  the  building  was 
erected.  At  any  event,  the  sculptures  were  commonly  inserted  quite 
at  hap-hazard,  and  not  in  the  positions  they  were  intended  to  occupy. 


CLUNY 


107 

Obviously,  these  reliefs  were  carved  long  before  being  placed.  San- 
giiesa  (Ill.  749-754)  and  the  Puerta  de  las  Platerias  at  Santiago  (Ill. 
676)  offer  good  examples  of  this  manner  of  building  in  Spain,  Civray 
(Ill.  1122-1131)  and  Loches  (Ill.  1111-1119)  in  France.  At  Reims, 
statues  executed  for  the  west  portal  could  not  be  placed  as  originally 
intended,  because  plans  were  radically  changed  between  the  time 
the  sculptures  were  made,  and  the  building  of  the  portal.  These 
statues  were  made  a  half  century  before  the  portal  was  actually 
erected.  In  the  fagade  of  Notre-Dame-la-Grande  of  Poitiers  (Ill. 
956)  a  column  cuts  across  the  figure  of  Adam.  The  string-course 
over  the  figure  of  Nabacchodnosor  (Ill.  958)  has  a  different  profile 
from  that  over  the  prophets,  and  is  discontinued  altogether  at  their 
right  (Ill.  958).  Such  irregularities  could  only  have  arisen  in  sculp¬ 
tures  carved  before  being  placed.^ 

In  the  light  of  all  this  evidence  we  may  conclude  that  the  capitals 
of  the  ambulatory  of  Cluny  were  not  carved  after  being  placed,  and 
that  they  really  were  executed  between  1088  and  1095. 

It  must  not  be  forgotten  that  the  abbey  of  Cluny  possessed  other 
Romanesque  sculptures  besides  the  ambulatory  capitals.  In  the 
Musee  Ochier  there  is  preserved  a  capital,  quite  different  in  style 
from  those  of  the  ambulatory,  and  coming  from  the  church  (Ill.  10). 
I  conjecture  that  it  belonged  to  the  nave.  The  style  is  puzzling.  The 
heavy  stocky  figures  are  at  the  opposite  pole  from  the  delicate  grace¬ 
ful  work  of  the  ambulatory ;  they  seem  to  be  related,  though  in  gen¬ 
eral  character  rather  in  detail,  to  the  work  at  Charlieu  (Ill.  4).  At 
first  they  give  the  impression  of  being  earlier  than  the  ambulatory 
capitals ;  but  on  closer  study,  especially  of  the  faces,  it  becomes  clear 
that  the  reverse  is  the  case.  This  capital  was,  however,  in  all  proba¬ 
bility,  executed  before  1108. 

^  Certain  reliefs  of  Poitou  have  uncarved  blocks  inserted  in  the  middle.  Such  are  found,  for 
example,  in  the  Constantine  (Ill.  1126)  and  voussures  of  Civray,  in  the  voussures  of  St.- 
Pompain  (Ill.  1058),  and  before  the  restoration  existed  in  the  voussures  of  Ste. -Croix  of  Bor¬ 
deaux.  These  uncarved  blocks  must  have  been  inserted  to  replace  weathered  portions  of  the 
sculptures  in  some  restoration,  perhaps  of  the  XVIII  century.  It  was  doubtless  the  intention 
to  carve  them,  but  this  was  never  carried  out.  The  same  explanation  applies  to  the  uncarved 
blocks  replacing  statues  on  the  fagade  of  Perignac  (Ill.  1020,  1021). 


io8  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

The  great  portal  at  Cluny  was  part  of  the  church  of  1088-1113.^ 
Since  it  was  situated  at  the  western  end  of  the  church,  it  would  pre¬ 
sumably  have  been  erected  rather  towards  the  end  of  this  time.  It 
has  been  totally  destroyed,  and  Sagot’s  lithograph  appears  to  be  phe¬ 
nomenally  inaccurate,  so  that  it  is  impossible  to  judge  of  the  style. 
The  composition  is  known  from  descriptions  and  the  lithograph. ^ 
In  the  immense  tympanum,  sixteen  feet  broad,  appeared  the  figure 
of  Christ  in  an  aureole  sustained  by  four  angels;  about  were  the 
symbols  of  the  four  evangelists.  Below,  on  the  lintel  were  the  four 
and  twenty  elders ;  and  above,  in  the  spandrels,  four  apostles.  In  the 
inner  row  of  voussures  about  the  tympanum  were  sculptured  reliefs 
of  angels;  and  on  the  third  voussure  were  twenty-five  medallions, 
each  containing  a  head  in  profile. 

^  I  was  wrong  in  my  surmise  that  it  was  one  of  the  portions  of  the  church  rebuilt  in  1125- 
1 13 1.  The  proofs  that  it  must  have  belonged  to  the  earlier  construction  will  appear  in  a  later 
chapter. 

Millenaire,  II,  Plate  II. 


VII 


THE  DIFFUSION  OF  CLUNIAC  ART 
IN  BURGUNDY 

The  glorious  tympanum  of  Vezelay  (Ill.  47-49),  like  so  much  else 
in  that  abbey,  is  evidently  derived  from  Cluny.  The  subject,  it  is 
true,  has  been  changed;  we  no  longer  have  the  Majestas  Domini  of 
the  Cluny  tympanum,  but  Pentecost.^  The  great  figure  of  the  Deity 
in  an  aureole  still,  however,  continues  to  be  the  central  point  of  the 
composition ;  there  is  still  a  lintel  forming  a  base  to  the  tympanum ; 
and  the  great  size  of  this  superb  lunette  could  only  have  been  in¬ 
spired  by  Cluny. 

The  nave  of  Vezelay  was  finished  in  1120,  the  narthex  was  conse¬ 
crated  in  1132.  The  portal  would  seem  to  belong  to  the  nave  rather 
than  to  the  narthex,  and  consequently  to  belong  with  the  earlier 
rather  than  with  the  later  date.  However,  it  should  be  observed 
that  the  hand  of  the  master  of  the  tympanum  can  be  recognized  in 
none  of  the  capitals  of  the  nave,  but  only  in  those  of  the  narthex. 
This  seems  to  indicate  that  the  master  of  the  tympanum  was  not  at 
work  at  V ezelay  when  the  nave  was  being  built,  but  that  he  was  there 
when  the  narthex  was  being  constructed.  The  conclusion  is  therefore 
justified  that  the  tympanum  dates  from  shortly  before  1132. 

Another  derivative  of  the  tympanum  of  Cluny  is  that  of  Autun 
(Ill.  80,  81).  Although  not  a  Cluniac  priory,  like  Vezelay,  the  ca¬ 
thedral  of  Autun  was  nevertheless  closely  connected  with  the  great 

^  The  iconography  of  Vezelay  should  be  compared  with  the  mosaic  in  one  of  the  domes  of 
St.  Mark’s  at  Venice  representing  the  same  subject.  Here  below  the  apostles  are  shown  the 
nations  called  to  the  faith  —  Romani,  Judaei,  Cretes,  Arabes,  Parthi,  Medi,  Aelamitae,  Meso¬ 
potamia,  Judaea,  Cappadocia,  Pontum,  Asiatici,  Phrygia,  Pamphylia,  Aegyptus,  Lybia.  Ac¬ 
cording  to  Marco  Polo  there  were  dog-headed  men  in  the  island  of  Agaman  (Andaman)  in  the 
Gulf  of  Bengal.  These  are  illustrated  with  a  miniature  in  the  manuscript  Fr.  2810  of  the 
Bibliotheque  Nationale.  The  same  conception  re-appears  in  Oderico  da  Pordenone’s  descrip¬ 
tion  of  Nicobar,  also  illustrated  in  the  same  manuscript.  The  conception  of  dog-headed  men 
is  familiar  in  Japanese  and  Chinese  art. 


no  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

abbey.  The  bishop  Etienne  de  Bage  (1112-1139)  by  whom  the 
cathedral  was  built,  went  to  Cluny  to  die ;  documents  speak  of  the 
cathedral  as  associated  {conjuncta)  with  Cluny.^  The  subject  of  the 
tympanum  is  changed  again ;  in  this  case  it  is  the  Last  Judgment. 
The  theme  once  established  at  Autun  was  sculptured  in  the  western 
tympana  of  countless  churches  of  the  Occident.  Perhaps  it  came  to 
Autun  from  the  painted  Last  Judgment,  which  St.  Hugh  had  caused 
to  be  executed  in  the  refectory  which  he  had  built  at  Cluny.^  The 
subject  is  ultimately  of  Oriental  origin.^ 

The  composition  of  the  tympanum  retains  the  essential  lines  of 
that  of  Cluny.  Again  there  is  the  figure  of  Christ  in  the  aureole  in 
the  centre ;  again  the  narrow  lintel  crowded  with  little  figures.  Again 
the  tympanum  is  of  enormous  size. 

We  are  fortunate  in  knowing  the  name  of  the  sculptor  who  ex¬ 
ecuted  the  tympanum  of  Autun ;  he  has  signed  his  name,  Gislebertus 
—  Gilbert.'^ 

It  is  evident  that  Gilbert’s  manner,  like  that  of  the  sculptor  of  the 
Cluny  capitals,  was  largely  formed  on  miniatures.  The  angels 
plunging  downwards  head-foremost,  recall,  for  example,  the  Sac¬ 
ramentary  of  Henry  II  ^  and  the  IX-century  Apocalypse  of  Treves.® 
The  spiral  belly  folds  must  certainly  have  come  from  a  manuscript — 
we  find  precisely  such  in  a  miniature  representing  Christ  between 
evangelists  and  prophets  in  the  Louvre  Bible  of  Charles-le-Chauve, 
in  a  miniature  of  St.  Matthew  in  the  Perikopenbuch  Kaiser  Hein¬ 
richs  II,  a  work  of  the  Reichenau  school  of  before  1014;  ^  in  another 

*  Bullarium,  215.  ^  Lorain,  91. 

^  Last  Judgments  had  been  painted  in  fresco  in  the  West  at  St.  George,  on  the  island  of 
Reichenau,  about  the  middle  of  the  XI  century,  and  at  S.  Angelo  in  Formis  at  the  end  of  the 
XI  century.  The  subject  appears  to  have  been  represented  as  early  as  the  end  of  the  IX  century 
in  the  lower  church  of  S.  Clemente  at  Rome.  That  the  inconographical  conception  came  from 
the  Orient  is  the  opinion  of  Bertaux  {Ital.  Me'r.,  259).  M.  Diehl  (228)  has  remarked  that  it 
appears  in  the  Cosmas  Indicopleustes,  which  is  a  IX-century  copy  of  a  Vl-century  original. 

GISLEBERTVS  HOC  FECIT 

®  Illustrated  in  Michel,  I,  2,  733. 

®  Bibl.  de  la  Ville,  No.  31,  illustrated  by  Boinet,  PI.  CLV.  The  motive  also  occurs  in  an  ivory 
of  the  Kaiser  Friederich  Museum  at  Berlin.  This  work,  which  dates  from  the  middle  of  the 
XI  century,  has  been  illustrated  by  Goldschmidt,  II,  No.  34. 

^  Illustrated  by  Leidinger,  V,  2. 


CLUNIAC  ART  IN  BURGUNDY 


III 


miniature,  representing  the  dormition  of  the  Virgin  in  the  same 
manuscript,^  in  an  Armenian  manuscript  of  the  X-XII  centuries,^ 
and  in  the  Benedictional  of  St.  Aethelwold  of  the  school  of  Win¬ 
chester.^  The  motive  may  be  traced  back  as  far  as  an  ivory  diptych 
of  the  VI  century  in  the  British  Museum.^ 

Gilbert’s  manner  of  covering  his  draperies  with  a  net-work  of  fine 
lines  is  also  probably  derived  from  a  manuscript.  We  find  something 
very  similar  in  the  IX-century  gospels  of  Lothaire.  The  motive  may 
very  probably  have  originated  in  Byzantium.  It  is  found  on  the 
Christ  of  the  gold  and  enamel  paliotto  of  St.  Mark’s  at  Venice  this 
appears  to  be  a  Byzantine  work  of  the  X  century.  In  sculpture  we 
find  similar  technique  in  the  late  XI  century  in  a  capital  of  Otranto,® 
and  at  the  end  of  the  XII  and  beginning  of  the  XIII  centuries  in 
sculptures  of  Catalonia,  at  Perpignan  (Ill.  618-620),  Elne  (Ill.  623- 
626),  Arles-sur-Tech  (Ill.  627). 

The  curious  leg-bands  which  appear  on  the  thighs  of  several  of 
Gilbert’s  figures,  perhaps  originated  in  a  bracelet,  which  was  mis¬ 
understood  and  transferred  from  the  arm  or  ankle  to  the  thigh  and 
treated  as  a  part  of  the  drapery.  Such  leg-bands  are  probably  of 
Byzantine  origin,  since  they  are  found  in  Japanese  art  also.  In 
occidental  art  we  find  them  in  a  miniature  of  the  Evangelium  Kaiser 
Otto  III,^  and  in  a  IX-century  German  pyxis  in  ivory  of  the  British 
Museum.®  The  motive  became  characteristic  of  English  miniatures 
of  the  School  of  Winchester.®  It  is  also  found  in  the  Xl-century  Area 
of  San  Felices  at  S.  Millan  de  la  Cogolla  (Ill.  662),  and  had  appeared 

^  Illustrated  by  Leidinger,  V,  33. 

^  Paris,  Bib.  Nat.  Syriaque  344,  fol.  5  verso. 

®  Illustrated  by  Homburger,  I. 

^Illustrated  by  Pelka,  69. 

®  Illustrated  by  Venturi,  II,  649. 

®  Illustrated  by  Wackernagel,  Taf.  IX  e. 

’’  Illustrated  by  Leidinger,  I,  13. 

*  Illustrated  by  Dalton,  PI.  XXIII,  43. 

®  It  is  found,  for  example,  in  the  Descent  to  Limbo  of  the  Benedictional  of  St.  Aethelwold 
of  c.  980,  illustrated  by  Homburger,  I ;  in  the  Register  of  New  Minster,  Winchester  of  c.  1030, 
British  Museum,  Stowe  MS.  960,  illustrated  by  Bond,  Thompson  and  Warner,  II,  17;  and 
in  a  miniature  of  the  end  of  the  X  century  representing  St.  Michael,  in  Cottonian  Psalter, 
Tiberius  C  VI,  British  Museum,  illustrated  by  Westwood,  PI.  46. 


1 12  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

in  sculpture  in  the  St.  James  of  the  Puerta  de  las  Platerias  at  Santiago 
(Ill.  676)  before  it  found  its  way  to  Autun. 

A  figure  with  its  head  turned  directly  back,  like  the  soul  on  the  left- 
hand  side  of  the  tympanum  of  Autun  (Ill.  80)  is  found  in  the  Register 
of  New  Minster,  of  the  Winchester  School.^  The  capital  of  the  nave 
of  Autun,  by  Gilbert,  representing  the  angel  appearing  to  St.  Peter 
in  prison  (Ill.  79)  has  the  subject  enclosed  in  an  arch,  as  do  the  min¬ 
iatures  of  the  Benedictional  of  St.  Aethelwold.  The  devil  represented 
on  one  of  the  capitals  of  the  nave^  is  precisely  like  the  devil  of  a 
miniature  of  the  Liber  Vitae  of  the  school  of  Winchester.® 

From  these  analogies,  we  may  draw  the  conclusion  that  Gilbert 
founded  his  art  upon  Cluniac  tradition,  but  that  he  was  deeply  in¬ 
fluenced,  like  all  Burgundian  sculptors,  by  miniatures  of  the  school 
of  Winchester.  He  also  probably  knew  German  miniatures. 

The  cathedral  of  Autun  was  begun  in  1119  or  1120;  it  was  conse¬ 
crated  in  1132  and  a  second  time  in  1146.^  The  capitals  of  the  nave 
and  the  tympanum  belong  to  the  campaign  of  1119-1132. 

That  the  nave  is  substantially  contemporary  with  the  tympanum 
is  proved  by  the  fact  that  the  hand  of  Gilbert  may  be  recognized  in 
several  of  the  capitals  —  those  representing  the  Fall  of  Simon  Magus 
(Ill.  75),  St.  Peter  in  Prison  (Ill.  79),  Music,  Noli  me  tangere 
(Ill.  78),  the  Ravishing  of  the  Magdalen,®  the  Temptation.® 

If  we  compare  the  tympanum  of  Autun  (Ill.  80,  81)  with  that  of 
Vezelay  (Ill.  47-49),  we  shall  easily  convince  ourselves  that  the  two 
are  contemporary.  The  style  is  very  diflPerent  —  each  is  the  work 
of  a  highly  individual  hand.  They  are  none  the  less  clearly  products 
of  the  same  art  and  of  the  same  time.  Now  we  have  found  reason  to 
believe  that  the  tympanum  of  Vezelay  was  sculptured  before  1132. 
We  are  therefore  justified  in  believing  that  the  tympanum  and  nave 

'  British  Museum,  Stowe  MS.  960,  illustrated  by  Bond,  Thompson  and  Warner,  II,  17. 

*  Illustrated  by  Terrey,  PI.  I. 

^  British  Museum,  Stowe  MS.  944,  illustrated  by  Herbert,  PI.  XIII. 

*  For  a  study  of  the  documents,  see  De  Fontenay  and  De  Charmasse,  p.  cxlj  f. 

5  The  authorship  of  this  capital  was  first  recognized  by  M.  Male. 

*  Illustrated  by  D^chelette,  20  ter. 


CLUNIAC  ART  IN  BURGUNDY 


113 

capitals  of  Autun  belong  to  the  period  of  building  activity  at  Autun 
extending  from  1119  to  1132. 

When  we  compare  the  capitals  of  the  nave  of  Autun  (Ill.  67-79) 
with  those  of  the  nave  of  Vezelay  (Ill.  28-46),  executed  between 
1104  and  1120,  we  perceive  that  the  Vezelay  work  is  rougher,  more 
vigorous,  less  refined.  The  Autun  capitals  have  a  decadent  quality 
that  is  lacking  at  Vezelay.  We  easily  perceive  that  the  nave  of 
Vezelay  is  earlier  than  the  nave  of  Autun. 

It  is  only  in  the  western  bays  of  the  nave  at  Vezelay,  and  espe¬ 
cially  in  the  narthex,  built  from  1120  to  1132,  that  we  find  capitals 
really  analogous  to  those  of  Autun.  The  work  of  the  “Bathsheba 
Master”  (Ill.  44)  has  the  same  languor,  the  same  sweet  sweeping 
lines,  the  same  refinement,  the  same  seduction  of  decadence  that  is 
characteristic  of  the  work  at  Autun  (Ill.  68-81).  The  “Tympanum 
Master  ”  of  Vezelay  in  his  capital  representing  Samson  and  the  Lion 
(Ill.  46)  approaches  so  closely  the  capital  representing  Duke  Hugh  II 
presenting  the  cathedral  to  St.-Lazare  at  Autun  (Ill.  74)  ^  that  one 
is  tempted  to  call  them  the  work  of  the  same  hand.  It  seems  to  me 
that  it  is  more  probable,  however,  that  we  have  merely  a  strong 
influence  exerted  by  the  master  of  the  Vezelay  tympanum  upon  a 
sculptor  of  Autun.2 

Our  impression  of  the  date  of  the  capitals  and  tympanum  of  Autun 
is  confirmed  by  a  study  of  the  capitals  of  Saulieu.  This  collegiate 
church  was  associated  with  Cluny ;  ^  the  existing  nave  was  erected 
after  the  translation  of  relics  in  1119.^ 

When  we  compare  the  capitals  (Ill.  52-61)  with  those  of  the  nave 
of  Vezelay  (Ill.  28-35,  39~4^>  44))  we  perceive  that  those  of  Saulieu 
are  later.  At  Saulieu  there  is  more  attenuation,  more  manner,  more 
movement,  more  disparity  of  scale  in  the  figures.  If,  for  example, 
we  put  the  Vezelay  capital  of  the  Death  of  Cain  (Ill.  35)  beside  the 

1 1  am  mortified  to  be  obliged  to  illustrate  this  capital  from  the  modern  copy.  A  photograph 
of  the  original  has  been  published  by  Dechelette,  20. 

^  I  presume  it  must  have  been  these  capitals  that  M.  Male  had  in  mind  when  he  stated 
that  the  same  sculptors  worked  at  Vezelay  and  at  Autun. 

^  Bullarium,  216;  Bruel,  IV,  410. 

*  De  Fontenay  et  De  Charmasse,  p.  cxlj. 


1 14  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

Saulieu  capital  of  the  Noli  me  tangere  (Ill.  55),  we  shall  be  convinced 
that  the  Saulieu  master  is  softer,  more  graceful,  more  decadent.  Or 
if  we  compare  the  facial  types  in  the  Vezelay  capital  of  the  Stolen 
Blessing  (Ill.  37)  with  that  of  the  Balaam  at  Saulieu  (Ill.  56),  we  shall 
quickly  convince  ourselves  that  Saulieu  is  more  realistic,  more  plastic, 
less  archaic.  Compare  also  the  draperies  in  the  same  two  capitals  — 
it  is  evident  how  much  more  naturalistic  are  those  of  Saulieu.  When 
we  put  the  Saulieu  capital  of  the  Temptation  (Ill.  53)  beside  that  of 
the  Vezelay  Temptation  of  St.  Anthony  (Ill.  42)  we  see  at  once  that 
the  Saulieu  demon  is  more  accomplished,  more  exaggerated,  more 
naturalistically  rendered.  Or  if  we  compare  the  lions  on  the  Vezelay 
capital  of  the  burial  of  St.  PauP  with  those  of  the  capital  at  Saulieu 
(Ill.  61),  it  becomes  evident  how  much  more  naturalistic  is  the  work 
at  Saulieu. 

From  all  this  we  may  conclude  that  the  nave  of  Saulieu  was  built 
not  before,  but  after,  the  translation  of  relics  in  1119. 

That  on  the  other  hand  Saulieu  is  not  later  than  the  third  decade 
of  the  XII  century,  is  proved  by  comparing  the  capitals  with  those 
of  Moutier-St.-Jean,  now  in  the  Fogg  Museum.  These  capitals  are 
certainly  earlier  than  1133,  since  the  church  from  which  they  come 
was  built  by  the  abbot  Bernard  II  who  died  in  that  year.^ 

Now  if  we  compare  the  lion  of  the  Moutier-St.-Jean  capital  repre¬ 
senting  Samson^  with  that  of  the  capital  of  Saulieu,  we  shall  at  once 
perceive  how  closely  the  two  resemble  each  other.  If  we  put  the 
Moutier-St.-Jean  Journey  to  Emmaus  (Ill.  65)  beside  the  Saulieu 
Noli  me  tangere  (Ill.  55),  we  see  that  the  facial  types  in  the  two 
works  are  very  similar,  the  eyes  indicated  by  the  same  convention, 
the  hands  similarly  rendered,  the  hair  and  beard  represented  in  the 
same  way,  the  draperies  adorned  with  the  same  bead  border.  Mou¬ 
tier-St.-Jean  seems  contemporary  with,  or  if  any  thing  a  little  later 
than,  Saulieu.  Similarly,  if  we  place  the  Moutier-St.-Jean  capital  of 
Cain  and  Abel  (Ill.  66)  beside  the  Saulieu  capital  of  the  Temptation 

*  F.  M.  S.  phot.  7789.  F  2  Plancher,  I,  516. 

®  Illustrated  in  the  Fogg  Museum  Notes,  I,  2,  Fig.  6. 


CLUNIAC  ART  IN  BURGUNDY 


115 

(Ill.  53),  and  compare  the  face  of  Christ  at  Saulieu  with  that  of  Cain 
at  Moutier-St.-Jean  and  the  draperies  of  the  two  capitals,  we  shall 
be  convinced  that  the  two  works  are  contemporary.  The  capitals  of 
Saulieu  must  consequently  have  been  sculptured  in  the  years  imme¬ 
diately  following  1119.^ 

When  we  compare  the  capitals  of  Saulieu  (Ill.  52-61)  with  those 
of  Autun  (Ill.  67-79),  we  perceive  that  the  latter  are  less  vigorous, 
but  more  lyric.  Yet  the  two  are  so  much  alike  that  we  can  not  doubt 
that  they  are  contemporary.  Take,  for  example,  the  two  Flights  into 
Egypt  (Ill.  54  and  Ill.  71).  The  close  resemblance  of  the  two  repre¬ 
sentations,  extending  even  to  the  strange  rosettes  under  the  feet 
of  the  donkey,^  is  evident.  If  Saulieu  is  more  naturalistic,  Autun  is 
more  polished  and  refined.  The  donkey  in  the  Autun  capital  repro¬ 
duces,  almost  line  for  line,  the  donkey  of  Balaam  at  Saulieu  (Ill.  56). 
The  Devil  in  the  Judas  capital  of  Saulieu  (Ill.  52)  is  very  like  the 
Devil  in  the  Temptation  at  Autun.  The  Judas  of  Saulieu  (Ill.  52) 
seems  clearly  contemporary  with  the  disciple  to  the  left  in  the  Wash¬ 
ing  of  the  Feet  at  Autun  (Ill.  70).  We  have,  therefore,  another  indi¬ 
cation  that  the  capitals  of  the  nave  of  Autun  are  of  ii  20-1 132. 

Still  further  confirmation  is  afforded  by  comparison  with  the 
capitals  of  Moutier-St.-Jean,  which,  as  we  have  seen,  must  be  earlier 
than  1133.  The  general  similarity  in  the  types  and  in  the  draperies 
is  evident  at  a  glance.  (Compare  Ill.  62-66  with  Ill.  67-79.)  The 
wing  of  the  angel  in  the  Moutier-St.-Jean  capital  of  the  Journey  to 
Emmaus®  is  precisely  like  the  wing  in  the  Autun  Fall  of  Simon 
Magus  (Ill.  75).  If  we  put  the  Fogg  Annunciation  to  Zacharias  (Ill. 
63)  beside  the  Autun  Washing  of  the  Feet  (Ill.  70),  we  shall  perceive 
that  there  are  the  same  draperies,  the  same  working  of  the  eye,  the 

^  Capitals  strikingly  analogous  to  the  unfigured  capitals  of  Saulieu  are  found  in  the  cathedral 
of  Troia  in  Apulia  (illustrated  by  Bertaux,  Ital.  Mer.,  459).  One  of  the  bronze  doors  of  this  nave 
was  made  in  1119,  the  other  in  1127,  so  the  structure  must  be  about  contemporary  with 
Saulieu. 

^  Similar  rosettes  are  found  on  a  capital  of  the  crypt  of  Otranto  in  Apulia  which  was  conse¬ 
crated  in  1088  (illustrated  by  Wackernagel,  IX  b).  Are  they  connected  with  the  lotus-blos¬ 
soms  of  Oriental  art  ? 

*  Illustrated  in  the  Fogg  Museum  Notes,  I,  2,  Fig.  4. 


ii6  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

same  conventions  for  the  hair  and  beard,  the  same  facial  types.  It 
is  impossible  to  doubt  that  works  so  similar  are  contemporary.  We 
therefore  again  conclude  that  the  nave  of  Autun  is  of  1120-1132. 

As  closely  as  Autun  resembles  these  works  of  the  third  decade  of 
the  XII  century,  does  it  differ  from  those  of  the  fifth.  In  the  Ar¬ 
chaeological  Museum  of  Dijon  is  preserved  a  tympanum  represent¬ 
ing  the  Majestas  Domini  (Ill.  134,  135),  found  in  1833  embedded  in 
the  substructions  of  a  buttress  on  the  east  side  of  the  north  transept 
of  the  church  of  St.-Benigne.  This  relief  bears  an  inscription  stating 
that  it  was  restored  under  the  abbot  Peter.^ 

As  there  were  two  abbots  of  St.-Benigne  by  the  name  of  Peter,  one 
of  whom  held  office  from  1129-1142  and  the  other  from  ii  42-1 145, 
it  is  not  clear  to  which  the  inscription  refers  —  we  can  only  be  certain 
that  the  relief  is  anterior  to  1145. 

However,  it  is  known  that  in  1137  the  city  and  suburbs  of  Dijon 
were  devastated  by  a  great  fire.  “L’eglise  de  Saint-Benigne  en  fut 
presqu’entierement  ruinee;  il  fallut  dix  ans  entiers  pour  la  re- 
tablir.  ”2  Now  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  our  tympanum  was  part 
of  the  restorations  carried  out  by  either  one  or  the  other  Peter  after 
this  fire;  it  therefore  dates  from  between  1137  and  1145. 

The  composition  of  this  tympanum  (Ill.  134,  135)  shows  that  it  is 
another  derivative  of  the  destroyed  portal  of  Cluny.  We  have  only 
to  put  it  beside  the  tympanum  of  Autun  (Ill.  80,  81)  to  be  convinced 
that  it  is  much  later  than  Autun  in  style.  This  difference  is  so 
marked  that  since  the  Dijon  tympanum  can  not  be  later  than  1145, 
we  must  place  the  Autun  tympanum  at  least  as  early  as  1132. 

Nor  does  the  Majestas  at  Dijon  stand  alone.  In  the  same  Archaeo¬ 
logical  jMuseum  is  preserved  another  tympanum  (Ill.  136)  represent¬ 
ing  the  Last  Supper.  This  also  comes  from  St.-Benigne,  and  more 
precisely  from  the  portal  of  the  refectory,  where  it  was  seen  and  en¬ 
graved  by  Dom  Plancher®  in  the  early  part  of  the  XVIII  century. 

1  REDDEDIT  AMISSUM  MICHI  PETRI  CVRA  DECOREM 
+  ET  DEDIT  ANTIQUA  FORMAM  MVLTO  MELIOREM 
^  Plancher,  I,  494. 

2 1,  520. 


CLUNIAC  ART  IN  BURGUNDY 


117 

His  drawing  shows  it  surmounted  by  a  row  of  sculptured  voussures, 
purely  Gothic  in  character.  Now  this  tympanum  also  bears  an  in¬ 
scription,  similarly  stating  that  it  was  restored  by  the  abbot  Peter.^ 
It  therefore  is  contemporary  with  the  first  relief,  and  dated  between 
1137  and  1145. 

When  we  compare  this  second  tympanum  with  Autun  (Ill.  80,  81), 
we  again  perceive  that  Autun  must  be  at  least  as  early  as  1132. 

A  comparison  of  the  two  tympana  of  Dijon  (Ill.  134,  135  and  Ill. 
136)  with  each  other  shows  that  marked  difference  of  style  which  we 
have  already  found  is  so  often  characteristic  of  contemporary 
sculptors  in  Burgundy,  even  when  working  in  the  same  atelier.  The 
tympanum  of  the  Last  Supper  is  obviously  an  imitation  of  the  work 
of  the  head  master  at  Chartres  —  the  latter  must  in  consequence  be 
earlier  than  1145.  Although  drinking  from  fountain-heads  of  such 
purity,  the  sculptor  of  the  tympanum  of  the  Last  Supper  shows  the 
same  defects  of  weakness  and  decadence  that  are  characteristic  of  the 
Majestas  'Domini.  In  any  other  period  these  productions  would  pass 
as  masterpieces ;  but  when  we  come  fresh  from  Autun  and  Cluny, 
they  seem  faded. 

There  remains  one  other  monument  of  Burgundian  sculpture  of 
certain  date.  It  is  the  tomb  of  St.  Lazare  of  the  cathedral  of  Autun, 
carved  by  a  monk  of  the  name  of  Martin  in  the  time  of  the  bishop 
Stephen  (1170-1189),  as  is  known  from  a  destroyed  inscription.^ 
The  monument  has  been  broken  up,  but  fragments  are  preserved 
in  the  Musee  Lapidaire  installed  in  the  church  of  St.-Pierre.  In 
quality  these  sculptures  (Ill.  1 47-1 49)  are  among  the  finest  produc¬ 
tions  of  the  second  half  of  the  XII  century.  The  style  evidently 
takes  us  into  a  different  era  from  the  one  which  we  have  been 
studying. 

There  are  therefore  not  a  few  monuments  of  Burgundian  sculpture, 

the  date  of  which  can  be  determined  by  documentary  evidence. 

These  all  seem  entirely  consistent  with  each  other,  and  show  a  logical 

1  +  CV  RUDIS  ANTE  FORM  DEBIT  HANG  MICHI  PETR  VS  HONOREM 
+  MVTANS  HORROREM  FORMA  MELIORE  PRIO[REMl, 

^  De  M61y,  36. 


ii8  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

and  convincing  evolution  of  the  style.  There  is  consequently  no 
necessity  for  setting  aside  this  mass  of  documentary  evidence.  The 
monuments  and  the  documents  correspond  in  an  entirely  satisfactory 
and  convincing  manner. 

The  dated  monuments  are  distributed  over  the  century  from  1080 
to  1180  with  sufficient  evenness  to  form  an  outline  into  which  it  is 
not  difficult  to  fit  the  monuments  for  which  there  is  no  documentary 
evidence  of  date. 

The  new  art  created  at  Cluny  spread  quickly  through  Burgundy. 
The  earliest  extant  imitation  appears  to  be  the  altar  at  Avenas 
(Ill.  11-15).  Surely  no  other  sculptor  came  as  close  to  the  manner  of 
the  great  original  (Ill.  5~io).  Yet  his  inferiority  is,  of  course,  patent. 
Compare  the  Third  Tone  at  Cluny  (Ill.  7)  with  the  Christ  at  Avenas 
(Ill.  12).  The  coarseness,  rigidity,  jerkiness  of  the  Avenas  figure 
contrast  with  the  exquisite  grace  and  rhythm  of  Cluny;  the  great 
clumsy  hands  of  Avenas  are  doubly  disquieting  when  placed  in  jux¬ 
taposition  to  those  of  Cluny ;  the  dainty  grace  of  the  Cluniac  dra¬ 
peries  makes  those  of  Avenas  seem  rigid  and  not  well  understood.  But 
the  Avenas  altar  still  remains  a  work  of  great  merit.  The  sculptor 
has  certainly  sought  his  inspiration  at  Cluny,  but  he  has  not  merely 
copied.  He  has  developed  a  style  of  his  own,  which  is  of  decided 
originality  and  charm ;  his  work  haunts  the  memory  with  singular 
persistence.  We  can  not  but  respect  the  crispness  of  his  carving,  the 
sureness  of  his  touch. 

As  for  date,  his  work  must  evidently  be  later  than  Cluny,  therefore 
later  than  1095.  On  the  other  hand,  his  style  seems  entirely  free  from 
the  influence  of  the  other  great  ateliers  which  soon  succeeded  Cluny. 
I  can  detect  no  signs  of  the  influence  of  Vezelay  (Ill.  28-51).  Com¬ 
pared  with  Vezelay  indeed,  Avenas  seems  distinctly  earlier.  If  we 
put,  for  example,  the  Christ  of  Avenas  (Ill.  12)  beside  the  Daniel  of 
Vezelay  (Ill.  33),  we  see  that  at  Vezelay  the  eye  is  drawn  more 
naturalistically,  and  the  draperies  are  more  advanced.  It  is  prob¬ 
able,  therefore,  that  Avenas  is  earlier  than  1104.  We  shall  not  go  far 
astray  if  we  ascribe  its  production  to  c.  iioo. 


CLUNIAC  ART  IN  BURGUNDY 


119 

The  relief  of  the  refectory  at  Charlieu  (Ill.  16),  on  the  other  hand, 
is  obviously  later.  The  relationship  to  Cluny  is  still  patent ;  but 
the  draperies  are  more  complicated  than  at  Avenas,  and  a  border 
ornament  of  perforated  holes  is  introduced.  This  is  evidently  a 
very  archaic  example  of  a  motive  developed  at  Saulieu  (Ill.  55)  and 
destined  to  attain  great  popularity  about  the  middle  of  the  XII  cen¬ 
tury.  The  eyes  in  the  Charlieu  relief  are  rendered  by  the  same  pe¬ 
culiar  convention  which  is  characteristic  of  the  “Vezelay  Master 
No.  i”  (Ill.  34).  We  may  consequently  conclude  that  the  Charlieu 
relief  is  contemporary  with  the  atelier  of  Vezelay  (1104-1120).  It 
is  a  singular  fact  that  the  wings  of  the  angel  seem  to  be  executed  in 
the  Toulousan,  not  in  the  Burgundian  manner;  they  resemble  those 
of  the  reliefs  of  the  ambulatory  of  St.-Sernin  (Ill.  297-300)  — 
c.  1105  —  rather  than  those  of  the  tympanum  of  that  church  (Ill.  309) 
—  c.  1 1 15.  This  would  lead  us  to  place  the  Charlieu  relief  about 
1 1 10.  That  such  a  dating  is  approximately  correct  we  may  convince 
ourselves  by  comparing  the  relief  with  the  earlier  tympanum  of  1094 
(Ill.  4)  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  later  porch  of  c.  1140  (Ill.  108-110) 
on  the  other.  The  refectory  relief  is  obviously  closer  to  the  former 
than  to  the  latter. 

An  entirely  new  note  is  struck  by  the  superb  Christ  of  St.-Amour 
(Ill.  106).  This  is  one  of  the  unforgettable  creations  of  mediaeval 
art,  in  its  way  as  inspired  and  as  imaginative  as  the  capitals  of  Cluny. 
The  style  falls  quite  outside  the  development  of  the  Burgundian 
manner;  the  forms  of  beauty  which  crowded  to  the  mind  of  this 
artist  were  as  impatient  of  conventional  expression  as  of  realism  and 
the  possibilities  of  space.  He  makes  us  think  on  the  one  hand  of  the 
wild  fantasies  of  the  Irish  miniaturists ;  on  the  other  of  the  sculptures 
at  Nara.^  His  is,  in  its  way,  an  equally  supreme  achievement.  The 
date  of  this  masterpiece  is  not  easy  to  determine,  because  of  its  very 
originality.  Surely  such  draperies  could  not  have  been  conceived 

^His  draperies  are  indeed  much  closer  to  those  of  Japanese  art  than  any  I  know  in  the  Occi¬ 
dent.  See  especially  the  gilt  bronze  figure  earlier  than  781,  owned  by  the  Imperial  Household, 
and  exhibited  in  the  Kyoto  Exposition.  It  is  illustrated  in  the  catalogue.  I  am  indebted  to 
Mr.  Clapp  for  making  me  acquainted  with  this,  and  so  many  other  superlative  examples  of 
Far-Eastern  art. 


120  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

before  Cluny.  On  the  other  hand,  they  are  in  some  respects  rather 
similar  to,  though  apparently  earlier  than,  those  of  the  tympanum 
of  Fleury-la-Montagne  (Ill.  107)  which  seems  to  be  an  inferior  pro¬ 
duction  of  c.  1120.  The  chair  at  St.-Amour  is  like  the  chair  of  the 
Christ  at  Avenas  (Ill.  12).  If  we  place  St.-Amour  about  mo,  we 
shall  probably  not  be  very  wide  of  the  mark. 

Perrecey-les-Forges  was  a  priory  dependent  upon  St.-Benoit-sur- 
Loire.^  The  tympanum  (Ill.  84)  certainly  belongs  to  the  first  half 
of  the  XII  century.  This  Christ  in  majesty,  mysterious  and  silent  as 
a  sphinx,  charms  as  does  a  madonna  of  Bellini,  but  never  cloys.  The 
cherubim  flanking  the  aureole  are  superbly  mannered.  Chronologi¬ 
cally,  the  sculpture  must  be  placed  between  the  archaic  simplicity  of 
the  older  portal  at  Charlieu  (Ill.  4)  —  1094  —  and  the  refined  man¬ 
nerism  of  Gilbert’s  tym.panum  at  Autun  (Ill.  80)  —  1132.  It  seems 
more  advanced  than  the  capitals  of  the  nave  of  Vezelay  (1104-1120) 
(Ill.  28-44).  It  therefore  be  assigned  to  about  1125. 

Anzy-le-Duc  was  a  priory  dependent  upon  St.-Martin  of  Autun. ^ 
The  architecture  of  the  church  seems  imitated  from  Charlieu ;  it  is 
consequently  later  than  1094.  The  sculptured  capitals  (Ill.  17-23) 
are  exuberant,  even  rough ;  but  finely  spirited  and  full  of  imagina¬ 
tion.  Chronologically  they  seem  about  abreast  of  the  tympanum  of 
Fleury-la-Montagne  (Ill.  107),  a  monument  of  c.  1120. 

The  capitals  of  the  nave  of  Anzy-le-Duc  (Ill.  17-23)  should  be  com¬ 
pared  with  those  of  the  crypt  of  St.-Parize-le-Chatel  (Ill.  25,  26).  If 
we  put  that  of  Anzy  representing  an  acrobat  (Ill.  21)  beside  that  of 
St.-Parize  representing  the  Sciapodes  (Ill.  25),  we  shall  be  convinced 
that  the  two  are  very  closely  related.  Now  it  is  known  that  in  i  113 
the  bishop  Hugh  IV  of  Nevers  gave  the  church  of  St.-Parize  to  the 
canons  of  his  cathedral.®  There  seems  every  reason  to  suppose  that 
the  crypt  of  St.-Parize  belonged  to  a  reconstruction  undertaken  in 
consequence  of  this  donation.  The  capitals  may  in  consequence  be 

*  Mortet,  507. 

^Thiollier,  73;  Rhein  in  Cong.  Arch.,  LXXX,  269. 

’  Le  Nivernois,  237, 


CLUNIAC  ART  IN  BURGUNDY 


I2I 


considered  dated  monuments  of  iii3-  The  nave  of  Anzy-le-Duc 
must  also  date  from  about  the  same  time. 

The  western  portal  of  Anzy-le-Duc  is  of  a  different  and  much  more 
developed  art.  The  style  (Ill.  96,  97)  seems  clearly  more  archaic  than 
that  of  the  tympana  of  Vezelay  (Ill.  47-51)  and  Autun  (Ill.  80,  81), 
both  dating  from  about  1132.  It  may  therefore  be  assigned  to  about 
1125.  The  elders  floating  upon  the  voussures  suggest  the  influence 
of  the  school  of  the  West. 

A  second  portal  is  preserved  at  Anzy-le-Duc  (Ill.  95),  not  in  the 
church,  but  in  the  priory  buildings.  The  style  is  totally  different 
from  that  of  either  the  capitals  or  the  western  portal  of  the  church ; 
and  when  we  come  to  the  portal  that  has  been  transferred  to  Paray- 
le-Monial  (Ill.  98,  99),  we  shall  find  still  a  fourth  manner  of  sculp¬ 
ture.  All  these  must  have  flourished  at  Anzy-le-Duc  within  a  few 
years  of  each  other.  It  is  usually  supposed  that  the  portal  of  the 
priory  is  much  earlier  than  that  of  the  church,  but  I  do  not  believe 
that  this  point  of  view  can  be  justified.  The  style  in  fact  shows  many 
points  of  contact  with  the  tympana  of  Vezelay  (Ill.  47-51)  and  Autun 
(Ill.  80,  81),  both  monuments  of  about  1132.  It  is,  therefore,  prob¬ 
able  that  the  two  portals  of  Anzy-le-Duc  are  about  contemporary 
with  each  other. 

The  same  serpentine,  El  Greco-like  style  is  found  in  the  portal  at 
Neuilly-en-Donjon  (Ill.  93,  94).  We  have  here  the  work  of  a  hand 
very  closely  related  to,  if  not  identical  with,  the  one  that  sculptured 
the  priory  portal  at  Anzy-le-Duc  (Ill.  95). 

From  the  priory  portal  at  Anzy-le-Duc  and  the  tympanum  of 
Neuilly-en-Donjon  seem  to  be  descended  the  celebrated  outer  portal 
of  Charlieu  (Ill.  108-1 10).^  This  imaginative  work  possesses  a  Hindu- 
like  exuberance  of  ornamentation.  As  for  its  date,  a  glance  is  suffi¬ 
cient  to  reveal  that  we  are  here  dealing  with  the  late  autumn  of 
Burgundian  art.  The  Charlieu  sculptures  (Ill.  108-110)  are  ranker, 
more  mannered,  less  fresh  than  the  tympana  of  Vezelay  (Ill.  47-51) 

^  The  circular  table  in  the  Last  Supper  suggests  Byzantine  influence ;  compare  the  Armenian 
manuscript  of  the  Bibliotheque  Nationale,  Etchmiadzin,  362  G,  fol.  8  vo. ;  Codex  Purpureus 
of  Rosano  of  the  VI  century,  illustrated  by  HaselofF,  Taf.  V. 


122  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

and  Autun  (Ill.  8o,  8i),  hence  later  than  1132.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  puristic  tendencies  of  Chartres  are  notably  absent.  We  have 
already  seen  that  these  began  to  make  themselves  felt  in  Burgundy 
before  1145.  Charlieu  can  consequently  not  be  later  than  1140.  The 
tympanum  of  St.-Julien-de-Jonzy  (Ill.  iii),  smaller,  but  better 
preserved,  is  a  work  of  the  same  hand.  Its  composition  is  the  same 
as  that  of  the  older  portal  at  Charlieu  (Ill.  4). 

The  delicate  tympanum  of  Montceaux-l’Etoile  (Ill.  104,  105)  and 
the  sculptures  of  St.-Paul-de-Varax  (Ill.  86-91),  with  their  striking 
effects  of  space,  both  are  close  to  the  tympana  of  the  side  portals  of 
Vezelay  (Ill.  50,  51).  The  enigmatic  tympanum  which  is  the  most 
conspicuous  remains  of  the  ancient  cathedral  of  St.-Vincent  at  Macon 
(Ill.  92)  seems  to  be  a  conglomeration  of  fragments  which  were  per¬ 
haps  disposed  like  the  sculptures  of  St.-Paul-de-Varax.  The  original 
tympanum  of  much  smaller  size,  representing  the  Majestas  Domini^ 
the  apostles  and  the  two  witnesses  of  the  Apocalypse  was  at  a  later 
period  combined  with  parts  of  a  frieze  like  that  of  St.-Paul-de-Varax 
(Ill.  86,  87,  89,  90)  to  form  a  much  larger  tympanum  representing 
the  Last  Judgment.  The  wings  of  the  upper  angels  recall  Perrecey- 
les-Forges  (Ill.  84).  The  original  sculptures  may  have  dated  from 
about  1130.  Montceaux-l’Etoile  (Ill.  104,  105)  is  perhaps  a  little 
earlier,  St.-Paul-de-Varax  (Ill.  86-91)  a  little  later,  than  the  Vezelay 
work.  A  third  portal  of  Anzy-le-Duc,  now  in  the  Musee  Eucharis- 
tique  at  Paray-le-Monial  (Ill.  98,  99)  is  marked  by  a  style  which  is 
more  advanced  than  that  of  St.-Paul-de-Varax.  The  draperies  of 
Christ  seem  already  to  show  something  very  like  the  Chartres-esque 
formula.  On  the  other  hand  this  tympanum  seems  distinctly  earlier 
than  the  Dijon  tympana  (Ill.  134,  136)  and  also  earlier  than  the  outer 
portal  at  Charlieu  (Ill.  108-110).  It  may  therefore  be  as  early  as 
1135- 

The  fragments  of  the  church  of  St.-Sauveur  of  Nevers  (Ill.  126- 
133),  gathered  together  in  the  Musee  de  la  Porte  du  Croux,  are  of 
more  than  common  interest.  The  capital  representing  St.  Peter  and 
St.  John  (Ill.  132)  shows  points  of  marked  similarity  with  the  capital 


CLUNIAC  ART  IN  BURGUNDY 


123 


of  Tobias  (Ill.  45)  in  the  narthex  of  Vezelay.  Since  the  latter  dates 
from  before  1 132,  the  Nevers  capital  may  very  probably  be  of  r.  1135. 
The  tympanum  representing  the  Giving  of  the  Keys  (Ill.  133)  is  by 
the  same  hand  as  the  capital.  Since  the  tympanum  is  signed,  we  have 
the  name  of  this  interesting,  if  somewhat  mediocre  sculptor  — Mavo. 

The  style  of  the  work  at  St.-Sauveur  of  Nevers  does  not  seem 
entirely  Burgundian.  It  has  a  certain  dryness  which  recalls  much 
more  the  school  of  the  West.  The  gracious  movement,  the  swirling 
lines,  the  fluttering  draperies  of  Burgundy  are  strangely  absent.  We 
are  therefore  not  entirely  surprised  to  find  the  hand  of  this  same 
artist  in  a  capital  of  Fontevrault  (Ill.  923).  The  abbey  of  Fonte- 
vrault  was  consecrated  in  1119;  his  work  there  must  then  be  con¬ 
siderably  earlier  than  that  at  Nevers.  It  is  strange  that  at  Fonte¬ 
vrault  in  the  heart  of  the  West,  Mavo  seems  as  Burgundian  as  he 
seems  Western  at  Nevers.  He  was  possibly  born  and  formed  in  the 
region  between  Burgundy  and  the  West. 

When  we  compare  the  tympanum  of  St.-Sauveur  (Ill.  133)  with 
that  of  St.-Benigne  of  Dijon  representing  the  Last  Supper  (Ill.  136), 
we  are  in  no  doubt  that  St.-Sauveur  is  earlier.  It  is  clear  that  the 
St.-Benigne  tympanum  was  executed  under  the  strong  influence  of 
the  head-master  of  Chartres.  This  is  evident  not  only  in  the  facial 
types,  the  draperies,  the  borders  of  the  garments,  the  folds  of  the 
table-cloth,  but  even,  as  Mr.  Priest  observes,  in  the  composition. 
This  is,  in  fact,  a  reversal  of  the  composition  of  the  Last  Supper  on 
one  of  the  capitals  of  Chartres.^  Now  these  Chartres-esque  man¬ 
nerisms  which  abound  at  St.-Benigne,  are  lacking  at  Nevers.  We  may 
consequently  conclude  that  Nevers  is  earlier.  Since  the  St.-Benigne 
Last  Supper  is  anterior  to  1145,  the  Giving  of  the  Keys  of  St.- 
Sauveur  must  be  still  earlier,  or  of  about  1135. 

Indeed,  the  comparison  of  the  tympana  of  these  two  Cluniac 
priories  suggests  a  more  daring  conclusion.  If  we  divest  the  Dijon 


^  The  composition  was  made  popular  at  Chartres  (it  was  copied  thence  also  on  a  capital  of 
La  Daurade  of  Toulouse  —  Ill.  471  — ),  but  was  not  originated  there.  Mr.  Cook  has  called 
my  attention  to  the  fact  that  it  is  found  in  the  Area  of  S.  Felices  at  S.  Millan  (Ill.  661). 


124  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

Last  Supper  of  its  Chartres-esque  mannerisms,  so  evidently  a  super¬ 
ficial  affectation,  we  should  have  left  a  style  strangely  like  that  of  the 
Nevers  Giving  of  the  Keys.  The  head  of  the  right-hand  apostle  at 
Nevers  is  very  like  that  of  the  third  from  the  right  at  Dijon.  There 
is  the  same  trick  of  shortening  the  figures  to  make  them  fit  under  the 
curve  of  the  lunette.  There  are  the  same  faults  of  proportion  —  com¬ 
pare  for  example  the  figure  second  from  the  left  in  both  tympana. 
At  Dijon  have  we  Mavo  trying  to  imitate  Chartres  ? 

It  is  clear  that  the  sculptor  of  the  tympanum  of  Donzy  (Ill.  112- 
114)  also  knew  Chartres.  If  we  compare  his  composition  with  the 
tympanum  of  the  southern  portal  at  Chartres,  we  shall  have  no 
doubt  of  the  fact.  His  Virgin  sits  in  the  same  position,  holding  the 
Child  straight  in  front  of  her ;  in  each  case  she  is  under  a  canopy  sup¬ 
ported  on  columns  (that  at  Chartres  has  been  broken  away) ;  the 
posture  of  the  angel  to  the  left,  the  sweep  of  his  wings,  even  the  posi¬ 
tion  of  his  left  hand  and  arm  is  the  same.  The  bottom  folds  of  the 
drapery  of  the  Virgin’s  dress  are  in  the  two  cases  very  similar.  The 
crowns  are  alike.  The  right  hands  of  the  Virgins  are  precisely  the 
same.  The  tympanum  of  Donzy  is  certainly  inspired  by  Chartres. 

Yet  at  Donzy  there  is  much  more  than  mere  copying  of  Chartres. 
It  is  impossible  to  remain  in  the  presence  of  this  noble  work,  without 
the  conviction  that  it  was  produced  by  an  artist  of  strong  individual¬ 
ity,  with  a  vision  of  beauty  that  was  characteristically  his  own.  Now 
this  personality  which  persists  underneath  the  superficial  influence 
of  the  Master  of  the  Angels,  is  singularly  like  that  of  the  sculptor  of 
the  outer  porch  of  Charlieu  (Ill.  108-110)  and  of  St.-Julien-de-Jonzy 
(Ill.  III).  If  we  compare  the  face  of  the  angel  at  Donzy  (Ill.  112) 
with  the  face  of  the  angel  in  the  corresponding  position  at  St.-Julien 
(Ill.  Ill) ;  the  flutter  of  drapery  in  front  of  the  angel  at  Donzy  (Ill. 
1 12)  with  that  behind  the  left-hand  angel  at  St.-Julien ;  the  folds  and 
lower  edge  of  the  garment  about  the  left  knee  of  the  left-hand  angel 
at  Charlieu  (Ill.  108)  with  the  fold  about  the  right  knee  of  the  Virgin 
at  Donzy  (Ill.  113) ;  the  execution  of  the  feathers  of  the  wing  of  the 
angel  at  St.-Julien  (Ill.  iii)  with  that  of  the  wing  of  the  angel  at 


CLUNIAC  ART  IN  BURGUNDY 


125 


Donzy  (Ill.  112) ;  the  draperies  to  the  right  of  the  feet  of  the  Deity 
at  Charlieu  (Ill.  108)  with  those  about  the  feet  of  the  Child  at 
Donzy  (Ill.  113),  we  shall,  I  think,  be  tempted  to  conjecture  that  all 
three  tympana  are  by  the  same  sculptor. 

A  problem  no  less  interesting  is  afforded  by  the  two  portals  of  La 
Charite-sur-Loire  (Ill.  1 15-122).  Here,  again,  the  composition  of 
the  lintel  repeats  with  extraordinary  exactitude  that  of  the  lintels 
of  the  south  portal  of  Chartres.  In  this  instance  the  question  is  com¬ 
plicated  by  the  existence  of  a  third  rendering  of  the  same  theme  in 
the  frieze  of  Montmorillon  (Ill.  1072  a,  1073).  If  we  place  the  three 
versions  beside  each  other,^  we  shall  be  in  no  doubt  that  they  are 
closely  related.  The  similarities  are  extraordinary.  The  scene  of  the 
Nativity,  for  example,  is  represented  in  all  in  the  same  peculiar  way ; 
the  Virgin  lies  in  bed ;  above  her  is  a  sort  of  shelf,  on  which  the  Christ 
Child,  the  ox  and  the  ass  are,  or  were,  placed.  St.  Joseph  stands  in 
all  cases  at  the  head  of  this  arrangement ;  his  garment  falls  over  his 
left  arm  in  precisely  the  same  way.  The  angel  of  the  Annunciation 
at  Chartres  and  La  Charite  is  represented  in  the  same  manner ;  his 
wings  are  similarly  placed,^  even  the  feathers  are  executed  with  the 
same  convention.  At  Montmorillon  this  angel  has  been  transferred 
from  the  scene  of  the  Annunciation  to  that  of  the  Shepherds.^  The 

^  Excellent  reproductions  of  the  sculptures  of  Chartres  are  available  in  the  monograph  of 
M.  Houvet. 

^  This  arrangement  of  the  wings  is  an  old  Byzantine  motive,  the  history  of  which  I  have 
sketched  in  Lombard  Architecture,  I,  285.  In  addition  to  the  instances  there  cited  it  should  be 
remarked  that  it  also  occurs  in  a  manuscript  of  Monte  Cassino,  dated  1072,  No.  99  H,  Homiliae 
diversae;  in  an  ivory-carving  representing  the  Dream  of  Joseph  in  the  South  Kensington  Mu¬ 
seum,  called  an  Italian  work  of  the  XI-XII  centuries,  and  illustrated  by  Graeven,  II,  57;  in 
another  in  the  same  museum,  a  work  of  the  Ada  group  dating  from  the  IX  century  illustrated 
by  Goldschmidt,  I,  No.  14.  This  motive  had  been  naturalized  in  the  sculpture  of  western 
France  from  at  least  the  time  when  the  sculptures  of  Villogen  (Ill.  1083)  were  executed.  We 
have  here  another  indication  that  the  composition  which  we  are  studying  originated  where  this 
motive  was  at  home,  i.e.,  at  Montmorillon,  and  not  in  Burgundy  nor  the  Ile-de-France,  where 
it  had  been  previously  unknown. 

The  angel  of  the  Montmorillon  Annunciation  is  very  like  the  second  angel  from  the  bottom 
in  the  inner  voussure  on  the  right-hand  side  at  Le  Mans.  It  is  evident,  however,  that  the 
Montmorillon  angel  is  the  original,  the  Le  Mans  version  a  derivative. 

®  This  detail  is  puzzling,  and  to  some  extent  contradicts  the  conclusions  at  which  we  shall 
arrive.  I  can  only  suppose  that  the  St.-Gilles  Master  of  Chartres,  a  veritable  vagabond,  knew 
the  rendering  of  the  theme  at  La  Charit6  as  well  as  that  at  Montmorillon.  Mr.  Priest  has 
observed  that  certain  heads  at  La  Charite  —  notably  the  Virgin  (Ill.  118)  and  the  second  king 


126  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

altar  on  which  the  Christ  Child  is  presented  is  of  the  same  peculiar 
form ;  ^  in  all  it  resembles  a  pagan  pedestal.  But  enough  has  been 
said  of  the  similarities,  which  no  one  will  doubt.  The  differences  are 
more  significant  for  our  purpose. 

We  notice,  therefore,  that  the  Montmorillon  sculptor  is  fond  of 
movement,  which  the  sculptor  of  Chartres  avoids.  Compare,  for 
example,  the  two  angels  of  the  Annunciation.  That  at  Montmorillon 
rushes,  while  that  at  Chartres  hardly  moves.  The  shepherds  at 
Chartres  are  more  rigid  than  those  at  Montmorillon ;  the  virgin  in 
bed  raises  her  knees  and  lifts  her  elbows ;  at  Chartres  she  lies  corpse¬ 
like.  The  work  at  Chartres  is  more  monumental  and  architectural; 
that  at  Montmorillon  more  lively  and  naturalistic.  The  figures  at 
Montmorillon  have  not  the  attenuated  proportions  of  those  of 
Chartres.  The  draperies,  moreover,  have  a  different  character.  At 
Montmorillon  the  folds  are  broader  and  more  theatrical. 

All  these  facts  seem  to  indicate  that  Chartres  is  later  than  Mont¬ 
morillon.  The  great  changes  of  style  introduced  by  the  atelier  of 
Chartres  were  the  abandonment  of  the  movement  which  had  been 
before  in  vogue,  and  the  elaboration  of  a  new  type  of  drapery. 

However,  the  instances  we  have  already  found  of  minor  sculptors 
in  the  provinces  who  reproduced  pages  of  the  gospel  of  Chartres, 
and  numerous  others  of  similar  character  which  we  shall  come  upon 
in  the  future,  raise  the  a  priori  suspicion  that  we  may  have  here 
merely  another  instance  of  the  diffusion  of  a  Chartrain  motive.  It 
is  hence  desirable  to  find  definite  proof  that  Chartres  can  not  be  the 
original  from  which  the  other  two  are  derived. 

Fortunately,  such  is  at  hand.  At  Chartres  the  scene  of  the  Adora¬ 
tion  of  the  Magi  is  omitted,  but  this  is  included  at  both  Montmorillon 

of  the  Adoration  (III.  1 1 8)  have  a  somewhat  Chartres-esque  quality,  while  others  recall  the 
Betrayal  of  the  St.-Gilles  frieze  (Ill.  1319,  1320).  Did  the  St.-Gilles  Master,  who  worked  at 
St.-Gilles  and  Chartres,  and  who  also  knew  La  Charit6,  bring  thither  these  ideas  ? 

^  A  similar  altar  is  found  in  the  lintel  of  Bitonto  (Ill.  232).  In  the  Benedictional  of  St.  Aethel- 
wold,  a  manuscript  of  the  School  of  Winchester  of  c.  980  preserved  at  Chatsworth,  is  a  minia¬ 
ture  representing  the  Presentation,  with  a  square  altar  seen  diagonally.  The  Virgin  holds  the 
Child  somewhat  as  at  Montmorillon.  Illustrated  by  Wilson  and  Warner,  folio  35. 


CLUNIAC  ART  IN  BURGUNDY 


127 


(Ill.  1073)  and  La  Charite  (Ill.  118).^  The  composition,  it  is  true, 
is  reversed ;  but  details  like  the  peculiar  caned  chair  with  a  foot¬ 
stool  in  which  the  Virgin  is  seated  (such  a  chair  is  found  nowhere  at 
Chartres) ;  the  halo  of  the  Christ  Child ;  the  drawing  of  the  first 
magus,  prove  that  the  two  compositions  are  related.  Another  detail 
is  also  conclusive.  At  Montmorillon  (Ill.  1073)  and  La  Charite  (Ill. 
1 19)  in  the  scene  of  the  Presentation  the  Christ  Child  is  held  above 
the  altar;  at  Chartres  he  stands  upon  it.  That  Montmorillon  and 
La  Charite  have  common  characteristics  different  from  Chartres 
proves  that  Chartres  is  not  the  common  ancestor. 

We  notice,  furthermore,  that  La  Charite  shows  little  trace  of  the 
style  of  Chartres  in  the  details  of  the  execution.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  influence  of  Montmorillon  is  patent.  The  folds  of  the  drapery 
falling  from  the  left  arm  of  the  Christ  in  the  tympanum  of  La 
Charite  (Ill.  1 16)  are  evidently  inspired  by  those  of  the  Joseph  in  the 
Presentation  of  Montmorillon  (Ill.  1073).  The  halo  of  Mary  in  the 
Presentation  at  La  Charite  (Ill.  119)  is  bent  back  over  the  string¬ 
course,  precisely  as  are  the  halos  at  Montmorillon  (Ill.  1072  a,  1073)  ; 
there  is  nothing  analogous  to  this  at  Chartres.  The  little  square  altar 
which  appears  in  all  these  reliefs  in  the  scene  of  the  Presentation  has 
no  prototype  in  Burgundy  nor  in  the  Ile-de-France.  It  is,  however,  at 
home  in  the  West,  being  found  in  a  capital  of  L’lle-Bouchard  (Ill. 
1102),  in  which  the  Presentation  is  represented  with  this  same  pecu¬ 
liar  iconographic  formula.  The  style  of  the  sculptor  of  La  Charite 
shows  numerous  signs  of  having  been  influenced  by  the  West.  One 
suspects,  indeed,  that  he  is  not  Burgundian  at  all.  The  prophets 
flanking  the  aureole  (Ill.  115,  117)  are  not  very  close  to  the  nearest 
Burgundian  prototypes,  like  the  figures  of  the  “Mill”  capital  of 
Vezelay  (Ill.  40) ;  their  scrolls,  their  beards,  their  sinuous  contours 
show  that  they  must  be  rather  descendants  of  the  Isaiah  of  Souillac 
(Ill.  344).  The  crouching  figure  in  the  right-hand  corner  of  the 

^  The  ^ene  of  the  Visitation,  which  occurs  at  Chartres  and  at  La  Charite,  does  not  appear 
at  Montmorillon.  It  certainly,  however,  once  existed.  These  reliefs  are  not  in  their  original 
position.  When  they  were  moved  this  panel  must  have  been  destroyed.  Part  of  it  is  still 
visible  to  the  right  of  the  Annunciation  (Ill.  1072  a). 


128  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

tympanum  at  La  Charite  (Ill.  1 17)  looks  as  if  it  might  be  a  derivative 
of  the  figures  in  the  same  position  at  Angouleme  (Ill.  937).  All  this 
gives  reason  to  believe  that  Montmorillon  is  the  common  ancestor, 
La  Charite  and  Chartres  derivatives. 

We  may  even  go  so  far  as  to  conclude  that  Chartres  is  later  than 
La  Charite.  If  we  compare  the  latter  with  the  Dijon  Majestas 
Dominiy  we  shall  be  convinced  that  the  two  are  closely  related.  The 
right  hand  of  the  Christ  at  Dijon  (Ill.  135),  for  example,  is  precisely 
like  the  right  hand  of  the  Christ  at  La  Charite  (Ill.  116) ;  the  simi¬ 
larity  of  feeling  in  the  draperies  and  various  details  is  unmistakable. 
It  is,  however,  equally  clear  that  La  Charite  is  more  archaic.  Dijon 
is  notably  more  sugary,  more  relaxed,  more  naturalistic.  Since  the 
Dijon  relief  can  not  be  later  than  1 145,  it  can  not  be  much  later  than 
Chartres ;  La  Charite,  which  seems  so  much  more  primitive,  must  be 
earlier. 

It  seems  surprising  that  the  great  atelier  of  Chartres  should  have 
condescended  to  copying  works  so  little  known  as  Montmorillon  and 
La  Charite.  Should  we,  therefore,  suppose  the  existence  of  a  common 
prototype,  now  lost,  for  all  these  works  ?  I  do  not  think  the  hypoth¬ 
esis  is  necessary.  The  lintel  at  Chartres  in  which  this  passage 
occurs  is  not  by  any  of  the  four  great  masters  who  worked  upon  that 
facade,  but  by  a  fifth  and  much  inferior  hand,  that  of  the  St.-Gilles 
master.  We  shall  later  see  that  one  of  the  chief  characteristics  of  this 
sculptor  was  the  literalness  with  which  he  reproduced  other  people’s 
compositions. 

Moreover,  the  atelier  of  Montmorillon  which  seems  obscure  to  us 
to-day  may  not  have  been  so  in  the  XII  century.  The  provenance  of 
these  sculptures  is  unknown.  That  they  exerted  great  influence  upon 
Romanesque  art  is  proved  not  only  by  the  copies  at  Chartres  and  La 
Charite,  but  also  by  the  sculptures  of  the  west  wall  at  Souvigny 
(Ill.  124,  125).  This  Cluniac  priory  is  situated  a  little  to  the  west  of 
Burgundy;  it  is  still,  however,  geographically  far  removed  from 
Poitou.  The  debris  of  sculptures  which  have  been  set  up  in  their 
present  position  in  modern  times,  perhaps  originally  belonged  to  a 


129 


CLUNIAC  ART  IN  BURGUNDY| 

jube ;  ^  they  were  already  in  their  present  position  when  drawn  by 
Chenevard  in  1838.  The  style  is  evidently  closely  related  to  Mont- 
morillon.  The  wings  of  the  angel  are  broken,  but  were  probably  held 
as  in  the  Montmorillon  Shepherds ;  the  draperies  are  precisely  those 
of  Montmorillon ;  and  the  curious  caning  of  the  chair  is  like  that  of 
the  chair  and  the  bed  at  Montmorillon. 

The  new  style  introduced  at  Souvigny  seems  to  have  spread  to 
St.-Menoux  in  Auvergne.  In  the  narthex  of  this  church  (Ill.  1257, 
1258),  and  in  the  museum  at  Moulins  (Ill.  1259)  are  preserved  frag¬ 
ments  of  a  screen  similar  to  that  of  Souvigny.  When  we  compare  the 
Christ  of  St.-Menoux  (Ill.  1257)  with  that  of  Souvigny  (Ill.  125), 
we  perceive  how  painstakingly  the  Auvergnat  sculptor  has  copied  his 
original.  The  folds  of  the  drapery  are  precisely  the  same.  It  is  evident, 
however,  that  all  the  freshness  and  vigour  of  the  work  at  Souvigny 
are  lost  in  this  uninspired  imitation.  In  the  bishop  at  St.-Menoux 
(Ill.  1257)  is  reproduced  line  for  line,  the  bishop  of  Souvigny  (Ill.  124). 

The  sculptures  from  Ebreuil  (Ill.  1254-1256),  now  in  the  museum 
of  Moulins,  are  a  hardly  less  patent  imitation  of  Souvigny.  Compare, 
for  example,  the  undergarment  of  Christ  in  the  two  works  (Ill.  125 
and  Ill.  1254).  Ebreuil  is,  however,  even  clumsier  and  more  uncouth 
than  St.-Menoux.  Another  echo  of  Souvigny  may  be  found  in  the 
Christ  at  Vizille  (Ill.  1185). 

To  return  from  this  digression  in  uncreative  Auvergne  to  the  fertile 
soil  of  Burgundy,  we  find  one  more  monument  which  shows  relation¬ 
ship  to  La  Charite.  It  is  the  tomb  of  Ste.  Magnance  (Ill.  146).  While 
the  facial  types  and  the  general  treatment  are  clearly  close  to  La 
^Charite  (compare,  for  example,  with  the  Mary  in  the  Presentation  — 
Ill.  1 19),  the  workmanship  is  distinctly  inferior.  The  execution  of  the 
folds  of  the  draperies  is  |very  similar  to  that  of  the  Christ  at  St.- 
Menoux  (Ill.  1257);  I  should  not  be  surprised  if  it  proved  to  be 
another  production  of  the  same  plodding  hand.^ 

^  Crosnier’s  drawing  seems  to  show  at  La  Charite  fragments  of  a  screen  like  the  one  at  Sou¬ 
vigny.  Compare  also  the  fragments  of  an  altar  reredos  at  Maastricht,  illustrated  by  Ligten- 
berg,  Taf.  IV. 

^  I  am  indebted  to  Mr.  Royall  Tyler  for  having  called  my  attention  to  the  existence  of 
sculptures  at  Ste.-Magnance. 


130  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

It  is  a  delight  to  turn  from  such  troubled  waters  to  the  limpid 
beauty  of  the  little  relief  at  Bois-Ste.-Marie.  I  can  detect  no  traces 
of  Chartrain  influence  in  this  masterpiece  (Ill.  142) ;  the  style  seems 
wholly  Burgundian,  a  development  of  the  lyric  mood  already  ini¬ 
tiated  in  the  lintel  of  Anzy-le-Duc  (Ill.  98)  now  at  Paray-le-Monial. 
The  naturalism  of  the  drawing  argues  a  date  about  1160;  so  satisfying 
a  composition  was  hardly  again  achieved  until  Benedetto  created  his 
lunette  in  the  Parma  baptistry. 

Delightful,  too,  is  the  portal  at  Avallon  (Ill.  137-141).  Of  all  the 
Chartres-esque  portals  of  France,  this  is  the  most  archaic  and  the 
most  crisp.  At  Ivry-la-Bataille  the  jamb  figure  is  more  elongated 
(Ill.  1478),  but  the  voussures  (Ill.  1474-1477)  show  an  art  which  is 
already  Gothic  in  feeling,  while  those  of  Avallon  are  still  thoroughly 
Romanesque.  They  are,  indeed,  closely  imitated  from  the  portal  at 
Vezelay;  and  the  style  of  the  tympanum  sculptures,  with  figures  of 
extreme  elongation,  recalls  works  like  those  of  the  Tobias  master  at 
Vezelay  (Ill.  45).  Obviously  this  good  Burgundian  sculptor  let  him¬ 
self  be  dazzled  only  to  a  very  limited  extent  by  the  glitter  of  Chartres. 
An  innovation  of  capital  importance  was  the  division  of  the  portal 
into  two  halves  by  a  central  column  with  arches.^  At  Santiago  twin 
portals  had  been  used,  and  at  Vezelay  there  had  been  introduced  a 
trumeau  (Ill.  47).  At  Avallon,  however,  there  were  twin  arches  under 
a  single  great  tympanum,^  now  unfortunately  destroyed. 

The  type  of  Burgundian  portal  initiated  at  Avallon  was  developed 
in  the  west  portal  of  St.-Benigne  of  Dijon,  now  entirely  destroyed. 
From  the  engraving  of  Dom  Plancher^(Ill.  I44)  we  are  able  to  recon¬ 
struct  the  composition.  Like  the  destroyed  tympanum  of  Avallon 
this  was  another  derivative  of  the  portal  at  Cluny,  but  into  the 
Majestas  Domini  was  unexpectedly  projected  (at  least  if  the  drawing 

'According  to  Revoil,  HI,  22,  there  was  an  earlier  example  of  this  motive  at  St.-Pons;  but 
the  upper  tympanum  was  not  sculptured,  whereas  the  two  minor  portals  had  sculptured 
tympana. 

^  This  tympanum  represented  the  Majestas  Domini.  St.  Lazare  was  on  the  trumeau ;  on  the 
jambs  to  the  left  was  the  Annunciation,  on  those  to  the  right  two  prophets  (Fleury,  132,  citing 
a  document  of  1482).  Drawings  of  the  portals,  showing  three  jamb  figures  in  the  central  portal, 
and  four  in  the  side  portal  were  published  by  Plancher  (I,  514)  in  1739. 

®  h  503- 


CLUNIAC  ART  IN  BURGUNDY  13 1 

may  be  trusted)  the  Church  and  the  Synagogue.  The  voussures  were 
all  sculptured  in  the  Gothic  manner,  so  the  portal  is  presumably 
later  than  Avallon.  The  extreme  elongation  of  the  jamb  figures  has 
also  been  discarded;  it  is  striking  that  they  have  been  moved  up  to 
the  top  of  the  columns.  On  the  trumeau  was  a  great  statue  of  St.- 
Benigne.  The  head  of  this  statue,  after  having  been  long  exposed 
in  the  wall  of  the  Hotel  Gossin,  has  found  its  way  into  the  archaeo¬ 
logical  museum  at  Dijon.  The  style  (Ill.  145)  shows  evident  kinship 
with  the  St.  Andrew  from  the  tomb  of  St.  Lazare  at  Autun  (Ill.  I49) ; 
the  Dijon  portal  may,  therefore,  be  assigned  to  c.  1170. 

The  arches  at  St.-Benigne  are  still  all  semicircular;  among  the 
sculptured  Romanesque  portals  of  Burgundy,  it  is  only  at  Semur- 
en-Brionnais  (Ill.  143)  that  the  pointed  arch  appears.  The  composi¬ 
tion  of  the  Semur  tympanum,  like  that  of  the  tympanum  at  Charlieu 
(Ill.  108),  repeats  once  more  the  formula  enunciated  at  Cluny. 


VIII 


THE  DIFFUSION  OF  CLUNIAC  ART  OUTSIDE 
OF  BURGUNDY 

We  have  seen  that  in  Burgundy,  and  possibly  at  Charlieu  (Ill.  4), 
was  originated  a  new  formula  of  composition  for  tympana.  This  con¬ 
sisted  of  the  representation  of  the  Deity  in  an  aureole  supported  by 
angels.  Variously  embellished  and  amplified,  the  motive  was  con¬ 
stantly  repeated  in  monuments  of  Burgundy. 

It  was,  indeed,  destined  to  spread  far  beyond  the  limits  of  that 
province,  and  its  frequent  presence  in  distant  lands  is  proof  of  the  far- 
reaching  influence  exerted  by  the  Cluniac  school  of  sculpture.  Thus 
we  find  it  in  Auvergne  (in  more  or  less  modified  form),  at  Thuret 
(Ill.  1139),  Meillers  (Ill.  1251),  Mars  (Ill.  1140),  Autry-Issard  (Ill. 
1141)  and  Mauriac  (Ill.  1246);  in  Languedoc  at  St.-Chamant  (Ill. 
1276) ;  in  Germany  in  the  Marktportal  at  Mainz,^  and  in  the  tym¬ 
panum  from  Petershausen  near  Constance,  now  in  the  Vereinigte 
Sammlungen  at  Karlsruhe ;  ^  in  Austria,  at  St.  Stephen  of  Vienna ;  ^ 
in  England  at  Ely,^  Water  Stratford  ®  and  in  the  south  portal  of 
Malmesbury  abbey in  Lombardy  at  Torre  dei  Piccenardi  in  Tus¬ 
cany  at  the  cathedral  of  Lucca  (Ill.  247) ;  in  the  Capitanata  at 
S.  Leonardo  (Ill.  214) in  Catalonia  at  Corneilla  (Ill.  528),  and  in  a 

^  Illustrated  by  Dehio  und  von  Bezold,  XII,  12. 

^  Illustrated  ibid.,  XII,  9. 

^  Illustrated  ibid.,  XII,  12. 

^  Illustrated  by  Prior  and  Gardner,  206. 

®  Illustrated  ibid.,  195. 

®  Illustrated  in  Bell’s  handbook,  ~j'i. 

’’  Illustrated  in  Porter,  Lombard  Architecture,  IV,  Plate  115,  Fig.  3. 

®  These  sculptures  are  not  as  late  as  has  been  supposed.  They  should  be  classed  not  so  much 
with  the  tympanum  of  S.  Maria  at  Monte  S.  Angelo  (Ill.  231)  as  with  the  sculptures  by  Acuto 
at  Pianella  in  the  Abruzzi  (Ill.  217,  218).  Indeed,  I  almost  question  whether  they  be  not  by  the 
very  hand  of  Acuto.  Now  Pianella  was  rebuilt  after  a  destruction  in  1158.  The  lintel  (Ill.  218) 
is  closely  related  to  that  of  S.  Clemente  di  Casauria  (Ill.  220)  which  is  a  dated  monument  of 
1176.  The  style  of  the  sculptures  at  S.  Leonardo  is  also  similar  to  that  of  the  master  who 
worked  upon  the  cathedral  (Ill.  204-206,  208-211)  and  Ognisanti  (Ill.  201-203)  Trani.  The 


CLUNIAC  ART  OUTSIDE  OF  BURGUNDY 


133 


somewhat  modified  form  (the  Labarum  being  substituted  for  the 
Deity  in  an  aureole),  at  St.-Feliu-d’Amont  (Ill.  548) ;  in  Aragon  at 
San  Juan  de  la  Pena  (Ill.  545)  and  with  the  same  modification  at 
Huesca  (Ill.  529,  531,  532) ;  and  in  the  Basque  provinces,  in  an  even 
more  modified  form,  at  Armentia  (Ill.  766). 

The  Burgundian  lintel,  as  well  as  the  Burgundian  tympanum,  was 
copied  throughout  the  length  and  breadth  of  Europe.  At  Charlieu 
(Ill.  4)  the  motive  is  enunciated  in  its  essence ;  here  the  cycle  of  the 
apostles  is  represented,  each  under  the  arch  of  an  arcade.  Lintels  so 
composed  had  been  known  in  Burgundy  before  Charlieu,  since  one 
is  already  found  at  Chateauneuf  (Ill.  2) ;  and  something  very  like 
the  motive  occurs  at  St.-Genis-des-Fontaines  (Ill.  513)  and  St.- 
Andre-de-SorrMe  (Ill.  514)  in  the  Pyrenees.  Charlieu,  however, 
appears  to  be  the  earliest  instance  extant  in  which  such  a  lintel  is 
placed  below  a  tympanum. 

The  motive  in  whole  or  in  part  was  repeated  in  various  regions. 
At  Rutigliano  in  Apulia  (Ill.  163)  it  was  reproduced  quite  exactly 
as  early  as  1 108.  In  Germany,  the  portal  of  Petershausen,  near  Con¬ 
stance,  now  in  the  Vereinigte  Sammlungen  at  Karlsruhe,^  echoes  all 
the  essential  parts  of  the  Charlieu  composition,  except  that  the  ar¬ 
cades  of  the  lintel  are  omitted.  In  the  Galluspforte  at  Basel,  on  the 
other  hand,  the  composition  has  been  entirely  changed;  only  the 
fact  of  the  lintel  witnesses  the  survival  of  the  Burgundian  tradition. ^ 
In  Lombardy  the  lintel  with  the  arcade  was  taken  over  by  Nicolb 
and  used  by  him  at  Piacenza,^  Ferrara  ^  and  S.  Zeno  of  Verona.^  But 
for  the  single  figures  of  apostles  which  at  Charlieu  had  been  placed 
beneath  the  arches  of  the  arcade,  Nicolo  substituted  reliefs  repre¬ 
senting  scenes  usually  from  the  life  of  Christ.  This  version  of  the 
motive  was  then  carried  back  again  to  France  at  Bourg-Argental 

bronze  doors  of  the  cathedral  of  Trani  were  made  about  1175;  it  is  absurd  to  suppose  that  the 
jambs  can  be  later.  All  this  brings  us  to  about  1175  for  the  date  of  the  S.  Leonardo  sculptures. 

^  Illustrated  by  Dehio  und  von  Bezold,  XII,  9. 

2  Ibid.,  XII,  9. 

2  Illustrated  in  my  Lombard  Architecture,  IV,  Plate  181,  Fig.  i;  Plate  182,  Fig.  4. 

^  Illustrated  ibid.,  Plate  89,  Fig.  5. 

®  Illustrated  ibid.,  Plate  225,  Fig.  2. 


134  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

(Ill.  1150),  Valence  (Ill.  1188)  and  —  in  a  frieze  —  at  St.-Trophime 
of  Arles  (Ill.  1374).^ 

At  St.-Trophime  of  Arles  (Ill.  1366)  and  St.-Chamant  (Ill.  1276) 
the  Burgundian  apostles  were  again  reinstated  in  the  lintel  below  the 
Majestas  Domini oi  the  tympanum.  Thence  the  motive  made  its  way, 
without  the  tympanum,  to  several  monuments  of  Tuscany  of  the 
second  half  of  the  XII  or  the  XIII  century  —  it  is  found  at  S.  Bar¬ 
tolommeo  in  Pantano  (Ill.  190)  and  S.  Pietro  Maggiore  (Ill.  228)  of 
Pistoia  and  S.  Giovanni  of  Lucca  (Ill.  227).  Only  at  the  cathedral  of 
Lucca  (Ill.  247)  is  it  found  in  connection  with  a  tympanum. 

In  France,  the  motive  made  its  way  to  Ganagobie  (Ill.  1236),  to 
Mauriac  (Ill.  1247),  to  St.-Bertrand-de-Comminges  (Ill.  323),  to 
St.-Sernin  of  Toulouse  (Ill.  310)  and  to  Cahors  (Ill.  422).  At  St.- 
Sernin  (Ill.  310)  and  Mauriac  (Ill.  1247)  the  arches  are  omitted,  so 
the  lintels  show,  perhaps,  the  influence  of  Cluny  rather  than  of 
Charlieu.  There  is,  at  any  rate,  no  doubt  that  the  row  of  elders  be¬ 
low  the  tympanum  of  Moissac  (Ill.  339)  is  derived  from  Cluny,  since 
here  as  there  elders  are  substituted  for  apostles.  At  Moissac  (Ill.  339) 
the  lintel  tends  to  be  absorbed  in  the  tympanum;  at  Beaulieu  (Ill. 
409)  the  reduction  of  the  lintel  was  carried  still  further,  and  at  St.- 
Denis  it  disappeared  altogether  (Ill.  1439).  The  lintel  was,  however, 
reinstated  by  the  head-master  at  Chartres.  Here  we  have  an  archais- 
tic  revival  of  the  motive  in  its  original  Burgundian  form ;  every  es¬ 
sential  feature  of  Charlieu  (Ill.  4)  is  present,  including  the  arches  and 
the  apostles.  The  only  innovation  was  the  addition  of  two  extra  fig¬ 
ures,  possibly  intended  to  represent  the  witnesses  of  the  Apocalypse.^ 
These  seem  to  be  derived  from  the  lintel  of  Etampes  (Ill.  1462)  which, 
together  with  the  tympanum,  forms  a  composition  representing  the 
Ascension,  a  subject  in  which  the  witnesses  are  regularly  represented 
with  the  apostles,  in  accordance  with  the  Biblical  text.  From  Char¬ 
tres  the  motive  spread  in  all  directions  —  we  find  it  repeated  in 


*  It  was  probably  from  Provence  that  the  sculptor  of  the  tomb  of  S.  Vicente  at  Avila  came 
by  the  motive,  which  he  combines  with  Etampes  canopies  (Ill.  850,  851). 

*  This  idea  was  first  suggested  to  me  by  Mr.  C.  S.  Niver. 


CLUNIACfART  OUTSIDE  OF  BURGUNDY  135 

France  at  Le  Mans,  at  Bourges,  at  St.-Loup~de-Naud  (Ill.  1492) ; 
it  formerly  existed  at  Angers,  St.-Ayoul  of  Provins  and  Ivry-la- 
Bataille.  It  travelled  as  far  as  Sangiiesa  in  Spain  (Ill.  742)?  in  a 
modified  form  to  the  cathedral  of  Genoa  in  Italy  (Ill.  254). 

In  the  portal  of  Cluny,  as  we  have  seen,  a  notable  advance  was 
made  over  Charlieu.  The  tympanum  was  made  of  immense  size  — - 
sixteen  feet  in  width.  The  arches  in  the  lintel  were  suppressed,  and 
for  the  twelve  apostles  were  substituted  the  four  and  twenty  elders. 
In  the  tympanum  were  introduced,  in  .addition  to  the  Majestas 
Domini  and  angels,  the  symbols  of  the  four  evangelists. 

The  composition  of  the  tympanum  of  Cluny  was  reproduced  at 
Moissac  (Ill.  339) ;  the  only  essential  difference  is  that  at  Moissac, 
for  lack  of  space,  some  of  the  elders  are  crowded  over  into  the  tym¬ 
panum.  This  tympanum,  like  that  of  Cluny,  is  of  great  size,  whereas 
the  earlier  tympana  of  Aquitaine  and  Spain,  like  St.-Sernin  (Ill.  308) 
and  Santiago  (Ill.  678-680)  had  been  of  small  dimensions. 

The  style  of  the  tympanum  of  Moissac  is  entirely  different  from 
that  previously  practised  by  the  sculptors  of  Languedoc.  It  is  only 
necessary  to  compare  the  photographs  of  it  (Ill.  339-342)  with  those 
of  the  earlier  work  at  Moissac  (Ill.  262-287)  Toulouse  (Ill.  288- 
322)  on  the  one  hand,  and  with  the  capitals  of  Cluny  (Ill.  5-10)  and 
the  tympanum  of  Vezelay  (Ill.  47-49)  on  the  other,  to  be  convinced 
that  the  sculptor,  while  undoubtedly  influenced  by  local  tradition, 
was  still  essentially  Cluniac.  It  was  only  in  Burgundy  that  he  could 
have  learned  his  elongated  proportions,  his  calligraphic  lines,  all  with¬ 
out  precedent  at  Toulouse.  Compare,  for  example,  the  angel  to  the 
left  in  the  Moissac  tympanum  (Ill.  340)  with  the  Grammar  of  Cluny 
(Ill.  6).  We  are  at  once  struck  by  the  similarity  in  the  bend  of  the 
figures,  the  tip  of  the  heads,  the  movement  of  line,  the  attenuation. 
The  resemblance  extends  even  to  details.  The  folds  of  the  drapery  of 
the  left  knees  fall  in  the  same  characteristic  oval  lines.  Now  put 
beside  these  two  figures  the  angel  in  the  corresponding  position  of  the 
St.-Sernin  tympanum  (Ill.  308).  It  is  clear  what  a  gulf  separates 
Moissac  from  the  heavy  massive  art  of  Toulouse,  and  what  close 


136  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

bonds  connect  it  with  Cluny.  The  face  of  the  Deity  at  Moissac 
(Ill.  341)  is  totally  different  from  that  of  the  Deity  at  St.-Sernin 
(Ill.  309),  whereas  it  closely  resembles  the  Deity  in  the  tympanum  of 
Vezelay  (Ill.  48  a)  —  there  are  the  same  eyes,  the  same  long  narrow 
head,  the  same  extraordinary  beard  with  little  strands  ending  in 
spirals  and  with  moustache  carried  over  the  beard,  the  same  conven¬ 
tion  for  indicating  the  hair,  the  same  nose.  The  broad  flat  folds  of 
the  Moissac  draperies  (Ill.  340-342)  are  essentially  Cluniac,  and  en¬ 
tirely  different  from  the  round  folds  of  St.-Sernin  (Ill.  309,  310).  The 
drapery  edges  at  Moissac  as,  for  example,  on  the  cloak  falling  in  the 
lap  of  the  Deity  (Ill.  341),  are  without  analogy  at  Toulouse  (Ill. 
308-321),  but  are  very  similar  to  the  draperies  of  Cluny— -see,  for 
example,  the  veil  of  the  figure  called  Iron  Work  (Ill.  9).  The  striking 
beards  of  the  Moissac  elders  (Ill.  340)  are  without  resemblance  to  the 
beards  of  the  St.-Sernin  sculptures  (Ill.  310),  but  are  an  obvious  elab¬ 
oration  of  such  beards  as  that  of  the  Third  Tone  at  Cluny  (Ill.  7). 
Even  where  Moissac  seems  to  resemble  St.-Sernin,  it  is  probable  that 
both  may  be  derived  from  Cluny,  for,  as  we  shall  presently  see,  there 
is  no  doubt  that  the  St.-Sernin  portal  was  influenced  also  by  the 
Burgundian  monastery.  Thus  the  tipped  heads  of  the  apostles  at 
St.-Sernin  (Ill.  310)  might  easily  seem  to  be  the  prototype  of  the 
same  motive  found  in  the  elders  of  Moissac  (Ill.  339).  But  Sagot’s 
lithograph,^  inaccurate  as  it  is,  suggests  that  the  heads  of  the  elders 
at  Cluny  were  also  tipped.  Similarly,  the  face  of  the  left-hand  angel 
at  Moissac  (Ill.  340)  seems  to  be  a  development  of  that  of  the  angel 
in  the  corresponding  position  of  the  tympanum  of  St.-Sernin  (Ill. 
308).  But  here  again  the  type  of  face  seems  to  be  Burgundian  rather 
than  Toulousan  ;  it  goes  back  rather  to  the  Grammar  of  Cluny  (Ill.  6) 
than  to  such  figures  as  the  angels  of  the  St.-Sernin  ambulatory  (Ill. 
297-302).  Nor  is  the  movement,  which  begins  in  the  St.-Sernin  tym¬ 
panum  (Ill.  308)  and  is 'carried  much  farther  in  the  tympanum  of 
Moissac  (Ill.  339),  a  native  growth.  It  had  been,  we  have  seen,  one  of 
the  chief  characteristics  of  the  art  of  Cluny,  and  before  that  of  the 
^  Reproduced  in  Millenaire,  II,  PI.  II. 


CLUNIAC  ART  OUTSIDE  OF  BURGUNDY 


137 

miniatures  of  the  school  of  Winchester.  The  tympanum  of  Moissac 
may  therefore  be  considered  essentially  Burgundian  in  style. 

The  date  of  the  tympanum  of  Moissac  has  been  much  discussed. 
A  late  chronicle  calls  it  the  work  of  the  abbot  Ansquitil  (1085-1 1 1 5). 
This  statement  would  seem  entirely  credible,  did  not  the  chronicler 
Aymery  proceed  to  give  his  reasons.  These  are  couched  in  a  Latin 
that  is  unintelligible;^  the  attempts  to  explain  the  passage  made  by 
modern  scholars  do  not  carry  conviction,  so  that  we  are  left  in  doubt 
as  to  what  the  chronicler’s  authority  for  his  statement  may  have 
been,  and  the  suspicion  that  it  was  not  very  good. 

Above  the  porch  is  the  statue  of  the  abbot  Roger  (1115-1131).  In 
the  inscription  the  abbot  is  called  "" beatus'’’ ;  the  statue  was  conse¬ 
quently  set  up  after  his  death,  or  after  1131.  Now  the  style  of  this 
statue  (Ill.  379)  seems  to  differ  materially  from  that  of  the  porch  be¬ 
low  (Ill.  360-377) ;  but  that  of  the  companion  statue  (Ill.  380)  is  less 
unlike  the  work  on  the  porch.  The  conclusion  seems  justified  that  the 
statue  of  Roger  was  here  placed  because  the  porch  was  the  work  of 
the  abbot  in  question,  and  that  hence  the  porch  was  erected  be¬ 
tween  1 1 15  and  1 13 1. 

In  this  connection  attention  should  be  called  to  the  fact  that  in 
1122  relics  were  translated  into  the  abbey. ^  It  may  well  be  that  the 
works  of  embellishment  of  which  the  porch  was  part,  were  under¬ 
taken  in  consequence  of  this  translation. 

The  style  of  the  sculptures  of  the  porch  differs  notably  from  that 
of  the  tympanum.  Although  the  technical  details  are  closely  copied, 
so  as  to  give  the  work  the  appearance  of  a  sort  of  unity,  the  trumeau 
and  porch  are  surely  by  a  weaker  and  far  inferior  hand.  We  have  only 
to  place  the  St.  Peter  of  the  jambs  (Ill.  360)  beside  the  angel  to  the 
left  in  the  tympanum  (Ill.  340)  to  perceive  the  superiority  of  the 
latter;  the  carving  is  crisper  and  more  vigorous,  the  draperies  far 
better  understood  and  more  competently  rendered.  The  face  of  St. 
Peter  is  more  advanced  and  naturalistic  than  the  faces  of  the  elders 
of  the  tympanum  (Ill.  339-342) ;  but  how  much  more  commonplace, 

^  Rupin,  66  f. 


^  See  Mortet. 


138  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

less  characterful,  less  original.  Compare  the  left  arm  of  the  St.  Peter 
(Ill.  360)  with  the  right  arm  of  the  Deity  in  the  tympanum  (Ill.  341) ; 
how  the  defects  of  the  latter  have  been  caricatured,  its  beauty  lost  in 
the  poor  copy.  The  fussy  and  weak  border  ornaments  of  the  draperies 
of  the  St.  Peter  and  Isaiah  of  the  jambs  (Ill.  360,  361)  contrast  with 
the  strong  vigorous  ornaments  in  the  tympanum  (Ill.  340-342).  Or 
compare  the  weak  characterless  faces  of  the  Virgin  and  Child  in  the 
Adoration  (Ill.  375)  with  the  strong  archaic  beauty  of  the  face  of  the 
angel  to  the  left  in  the  tympanum  (Ill.  340).  There  can  be  no  ques¬ 
tion  that  the  sculptures  of  the  porch  are  inferior  in  quality. 

There  are  good  archaeological  reasons  for  believing  that  the  tym¬ 
panum  is  not  now  in  its  original  position,  but  that  it  was  moved  from 
over  the  western  portal  when  the  existing  porch  was  erected.^  We 
must,  therefore,  conclude  that  the  tympanum  is  earlier  than  the 
porch. 

Are  we  justified  in  placing  it  as  early  as  the  time  of  Ansquitil,  or 
before  1115.^  We  can  only  arrive  at  a  satisfactory  answer  to  the 
problem  by  comparing  it  with  other  works  of  the  Cluniac  school  to 
which  it  belongs. 

When  we  compare  the  tympanum  of  Moissac  (Ill.  339)  with  that 
of  Vezelay  (Ill.  47)  dated  1 132,  we  see  at  once  that  Moissac  is  earlier. 
The  composition  is  much  closer  to  that  of  Cluny ;  the  draperies  are 
far  simpler  and  more  Cluny-like ;  the  manner  is  less  extreme ;  the 
facial  types  less  varied  and  less  naturalistic.  In  the  light  of  the  much 
more  advanced  manner  of  Vezelay  we  are  forced  to  conclude  that 
the  tympanum  of  Moissac  can  hardly  be  later  than  1120. 

Similarly,  when  we  compare  the  tympanum  of  Moissac  (Ill.  340- 
342)  with  the  capitals  by  the  “Bathsheba  Master”  at  Vezelay 
(Ill.  44),  a  sculptor  who  worked  on  the  western  bays  of  the  nave  and 
the  narthex,  and  who  was  consequently  active  about  1115-1132,  we 
feel  that  Moissac  is  more  archaic.  There  is  a  perfection,  a  refine¬ 
ment,  a  decadent  quality  in  the  work  of  the  exquisite  artist  of  Veze¬ 
lay,  which  makes  Moissac  seem  very  vigorous,  very  primitive.  It  is 


Fleury,  91. 


CLUNIAC  ART  OUTSIDE  OF  BURGUNDY 


139 


only  when  we  compare  the  Moissac  tympanum  (Ill.  340-342)  with 
the  masters  of  the  nave  of  Vezelay  who  were  active  before  1120,  that 
we  find  real  points  of  contact.  Thus  the  beards  of  the  “Vezelay 
Master  No.  3  ”  as,  for  example,  in  the  capital  representing  the  Mill  of 
St.  Paul  (Ill.  40),  are  not  without  analogy  with  the  beards  of  the 
Moissac  elders ;  the  facial  types  of  this  capital  distinctly  recall  those 
of  the  Moissac  elders ;  the  faces  of  the  Moissac  angels  are  evidently 
analogous  to  the  beardless  faces  of  the  “Cluny  Master”  as  seen,  for 
example,  in  the  capitals  of  the  Winds  (Ill.  31)  and  of  Daniel  (Ill.  33). 

From  all  this  we  may,  I  think,  safely  infer  that  the  Moissac  tym¬ 
panum  can  not  be  very  much  later  than  1120.  Whether  it  be  as 
early  as  1115,  and  hence  the  work  of  Ansquitil,  seems  to  me  too 
delicate  a  question  to  be  safely  decided  on  the  basis  of  the  evidence 
available.  Until  the  corrupt  text  of  Aymery  has  been  satisfactorily 
elucidated,  I  should  not  be  ready  to  conclude  that  his  statement  is 
untrustworthy. 

Archaeologists  have  probably  been  influenced  in  assigning  a  late 
date  to  the  tympanum  of  Moissac  by  the  circumstance  that  it  is  evi¬ 
dently  contemporary  with  the  rib  vault  of  the  porch,  since  the  latter 
rests  on  capitals  by  the  same  hand  (Ill.  337-338).  It  was  formerly 
believed  that  the  rib  vault  found  its  way  into  the  Midi  only  at  an 
advanced  period  of  the  XII  century.  However,  the  rib  vault  was 
known  in  Lombardy  from  shortly  after  1040 ;  it  is  found  in  Apulia  in 
the  church  of  S.  Benedetto  of  Brindisi,  begun  in  1090,  where  it  is 
already  profiled ;  in  1093  the  profiled  form  was  already  known  at 
Durham  in  England ;  it  is  found  in  Brittany  in  the  church  of  Ste.- 
Croix  of  Quimperle  consecrated  in  1073  ;  in  Poitou,  in  the  clocher  of 
St.-Hilaire  of  Poitiers,  consecrated  in  1096 ;  in  Provence  in  the  porch 
of  St.-Victor  of  Marseille,  which  must  date  from  the  last  years  of  the 
XI  century,  in  an  ornamented  form  in  the  choir  of  St.-Gilles,  a 
church  begun  in  1116  and  the  fagade  of  which  was  in  construction 
c.  1140,  and  in  the  profiled  form  at  St.-Jean  of  Valence,  which  ap¬ 
pears  to  be  of  the  first  quarter  of  the  XII  century.  In  the  Ile-de- 
France,  the  profiled  form  had  certainly  been  in  regular  use  since 


140  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

before  iioo.  The  use  of  the  unprofiled  rib  vault  at  Moissac  is, 
therefore,  no  reason  for  believing  that  the  tympanum  could  not  have 
been  sculptured  about  1 1 20,  or  in  1 1 1 5,  for  that  matter. 

The  influence  of  the  tympanum  of  Cluny  by  no  means  ended  with 
Moissac.  The  tympanum  of  Rochester  in  England  reproduces  the 
composition  exactly.^  There  are  other  derivatives  at  Champniers,^ 
Ganagobie  (Ill.  1236),  Sauveterre  (Ill.  488)  and  Bourg-Argental  (Ill. 
1150).  In  the  fourth  decade  of  the  XII  century,  an  abbreviated  ver¬ 
sion  came  into  popularity.  In  this  the  angels  supporting  the  aureole 
are  omitted ;  the  composition  is  reduced  to  the  figure  of  the  Deity  in 
an  aureole  surrounded  by  the  symbols  of  the  four  evangelists.  An 
early  rendering  of  the  theme  so  modified  seems  to  have  existed  in  the 
Puerta  Francigena  at  Santiago.  It  was  this  form  of  the  motive  which 
undoubtedly  existed  at  St.~Gilles  (Ill.  1318),  although  the  original 
sculptures  have  been  replaced  by  Renaissance  imitations ;  it  was  re¬ 
peated  in  several  monuments  derived  from  St.-Gilles- — Arles  (Ill. 
1372),  Vizille  (Ill.  1185),  Maguelonne  (Ill.  1384),  and  the  destroyed 
portal  of  Nantua.  The  head  master  of  Chartres  influenced  doubtless 
by  some  frescoed  arts  of  the  Bawit  type  took  the  motive  over  and 
from  here  it  ran  through  Europe.  Thus  we  find  it  at  Angers  (Ill. 
1501),  at  Issy  (Ill.  1489),  at  St.-Loup-de-Naud  (Ill.  1492),  in  both 
churches  at  Provins  (Ill.  1490  and  Ill.  1496),  at  Le  Mans,  at  Bourges, 
at  St.-Benoit-sur-Loire  (Ill.  1519,  1520),  at  St.-Pierre-le-Moutier 
(Ill.  1275),  at  Valcabrere  (Ill.  501,  502),  at  St.-Aventin  (Ill.  508) ;  it 
formerly  existed  at  Chalons-sur-Marne  and  Ivry-la-Bataille  (Ill. 
1474).  Outside  of  France  we  find  it  in  Spain  at  Tarragona  (Ill.  603), 
at  Besalu  (Ill.  602),  at  Tudela,  at  Sepulveda  (Ill.  799),  at  Agiiero 
(Ill.  547)  and  at  Soria  (Ill.  795) ;  at  the  cathedral  of  Genoa  (Ill.  254) 
in  Italy,  in  Germany  at  Soest in  Austria  and  Hungary  at  LavanthaU 
and  at  Tischnowitz.^ 

^  Illustrated  by  Prior  and  Gardner,  198. 

®  There  is  a  wretched  reproduction  of  this  relief  in  the  Catalogue  du  Musee  de  la  Societe 
Archeologique  et  Historique  de  la  Charente,  1 57. 

*  Illustrated  by  Dehio  und  von  Bezold,  XII,  8. 

^  Hamann,  125.  ^  Ibid.,  126. 


CLUNIAC  ART  OUTSIDE  OF  BURGUNDY 


141 

Another  composition  for  the  tympanum  possibly  invented  in  Bur¬ 
gundy  was  also  destined  to  have  illustrious  descendants.  At  Anzy-le- 
Duc  (Ill.  96)  the  Ascension  was  represented.  It  was  a  variation  of  the 
Majestas  'Domini  motive,  and  is  repeated  in  a  very  similar  form  at 
Montceaux-l’Etoile  (Ill.  104),  and  St.-Paul-de-Varax  (Ill.  88).  The 
earliest  example  of  this  subject  in  a  tympanum  which  I  know  is  not 
in  Burgundy,  but  at  St.-Sernin  of  Toulouse  (Ill.  308).  The  motive 
also  found  its  way  to  Etampes  (Ill.  1462).  It  was  taken  over  in  the 
northern  tympanum  of  Chartres,  a  work  of  the  Master  of  the 
Angels.  The  composition  at  Chartres  approaches  very  closely  that 
at  Etampes ;  but  it  is  certain  that  the  Master  of  the  Angels  knew,  and 
knew  well,  the  tympanum  of  Anzy-le-Duc  (Ill.  97).  It  is  thence  that 
his  angels  of  the  southern  tympanum  are  derived.  The  angels  of  the 
northern  tympanum  must  also  be  of  Burgundian  origin. 

It  must  then  be  admitted  that  Burgundian  tympana  in  general, 
and  the  tympanum  of  Cluny  in  particular,  exerted  an  enormous  in¬ 
fluence  upon  the  art  of  Europe.  Shall  we  go  still  farther  and  say  that 
all  tympana,  that  the  motive  of  the  tympanum  itself,  is  thence  de¬ 
rived  ?  It  has  recently  been  claimed  that  the  sculptured  tympanum 
is  a  French  invention,  and  that  all  sculptured  tympana  are  to  be 
classed  as  French,  all  portals  without  tympana  as  Italian. 

Such  assertions  are  not  comforted  by  the  facts.  The  motive  of  the 
sculptured  tympanum  originated  neither  in  France  nor  in  Italy;  it 
is  found  in  the  East  from  a  very  early  period,  as,  for  example,  in  the 
portal  of  Daschlut  ^  now  in  the  Cairo  Museum.  It  was  from  the 
Orient  that  it  came  to  Italy  and  France  and  Spain  as  well.  The 
sculptured  tympanum  of  the  north  portal  of  the  cathedral  at  Borgo 
S.  Donnino  ^  is  as  little  French  as  the  tympanum-less  portals  of  the 
cathedral  of  Reims  are  Italian. 

The  portal  of  Cluny  must  be  credited  with  an  important  part  in 
spreading  through  Europe  the  motive  of  the  elders.  There  is  an 
earlier  rendering  of  the  subject  in  sculpture  on  a  capital  of  the  clois- 

^  Illustrated  by  Strzygowski,  Hell,  und  Kopt.  Kunst,  22. 

^  Illustrated  in  my  Lombard  Architecture.,  IV,  Plate  29,  Fig.  5. 


142  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

ter  of  Santo  Domingo  de  Silos  (Ill.  668),  so  that  the  popularity  of 
the  theme  is  evidently  not  entirely  due  to  Cluny ;  there  can,  however, 
be  little  question  that  its  use  on  the  portal  of  Cluny  was  observed 
and  copied  by  sculptors  in  widely  separated  regions. 

This  motive  of  the  elders  seems  to  have  originated  in  Roman 
mosaics.  It  appeared  in  the  arch  of  triumph  of  S.  Paolo  f.  1.  m.  in 
440;  it  was  repeated  in  the  apse  arch  of  S.  Prassede,  817-824,  and 
in  the  frescos  of  Castel  S.  Elia  in  the  first  half  of  the  XI  century. 
The  composition  of  the  Cluny  portal,  with  a  lunette  above,  and 
a  base  band  beneath,  recalls  Roman  mosaics,  like  the  apse  of  S. 
Prassede.  A  certain  influence  of  Roman  mosaics  upon  French 
sculpture  must  be  admitted.  The  tympanum  of  Senlis  appears  to 
have  been  inspired  by  the  apse  of  S.  Maria  in  Trastevere.  The  four 
figures  in  the  spandrels  at  Cluny  recall  the  six  in  the  spandrels  at  S. 
Clemente,  which  is  the  earliest  example  I  know  of  this  persistent 
motive. 

At  S.  Paolo  and  S.  Prassede,  the  elders  had  been  represented  bare¬ 
headed  and  bare-footed,  carrying  their  crowns  in  their  hands.  At 
Castel  S.  Elia  they  still  stand  erect,  or  rather  move  slowly  in  stately 
procession,  and  they  are  bare-footed ;  but  their  crowns  are  on  their 
heads,  and  in  their  right  hands  they  carry  a  chalice  on  a  veil.  In  the 
capital  of  Santo  Domingo  de  Silos  of  the  last  third  of  the  XI  century 
(Ill.  668)  they  are  still  erect,  but  they  carry  not  chalices,  but  musical 
instruments  and  phials.  At  Cluny  they  were  erect  and  carried  musi¬ 
cal  instruments.^  They  were  represented  on  the  destroyed  Area  of 
St.-Gilles,  and  must  here  have  carried  musical  instruments,  for  the 
inscription  preserved  in  the  Pilgrim  s  Guide  contained  the  line : 
Dulcia  qui  citharis  decantant  cantica  Claris.  On  the  tomb  of  St.- 
Junien  (Ill.  450)  the  elders  are  seated  and  carry  musical  instruments 
and  phials.  This  iconography  perhaps  originated  in  Beatus  manu¬ 
scripts  like  that  of  St.-Sever,  in  which  elders  of  this  type  are  asso¬ 
ciated  with  the  Apocalyptic  Vision.  Such  miniatures  may  have 
influenced  the  iconography  and  even  the  composition  of  the  tym- 

*Terret,  in  Millenaire,  II,  3. 


CLUNIAC  ART  OUTSIDE  OF  BURGUNDY 


143 


pana  of  Cluny  and  Moissac,  although  I  can  detect  no  stylistic 
affinities.  At  Moissac  (Ill.  339)  the  elders  are  seated,  crowned, 
bare-footed,  and  they  hold  chalices  and  musical  instruments.  In 
the  upper  gallery  at  Parthenay  (Ill.  1055,  1056)  they  were  erect, 
and  held  phials  and  musical  instruments.  The  veiled  hands  recall 
Castel  S.  Elia,  and  foreshadow  Chartres.  At  Airvault  and  Anzy- 
le-Duc  (Ill.  96)  the  elders  were  represented  upon  the  voussures  of 
the  portal.  The  motive  is  developed  in  the  portal  of  Parthenay 
(Ill.  1048,  1051);  from  this  model  it  found  its  way  to  the  Ile-de- 
France,  to  St.-Denis  (Ill.  1439),  to  Etampes  (Ill.  1461)  and  to 
Chartres.  Like  everything  at  Chartres,  the  voussures  with  the 
elders  were  imitated.  They  were  repeated  almost  literally  at  Angers 
(Ill.  1502),  at  Avallon  (Ill.  137,  138).  Meanwhile  in  the  West,  a 
new  form  of  the  motive  had  been  developed.  At  Ste.-Croix  of 
Bordeaux  (Ill.  920),  at  Aulnay  (Ill.  979)  and  at  Varaize  (Ill.  1001), 
the  elders  are  placed  in  the  voussures,  but  turned  at  right  angles, 
so  as  to  radiate.  This  version  became  especially  popular  in  Spain. 
We  find  it  at  Soria  (Ill.  797),  at  Sepulveda  (Ill.  800),  at  Toro  (Ill. 
735))  Carrion  de  los  Condes  and  in  the  Portico  de  la  Gloria  of 
Santiago  (Ill.  824-828).  At  Morlaas,  Oloron-Ste.-Marie  (Ill.  461), 
and  St.-Guilhem-le-Desert  (Ill.  1400-1402),  the  Santiago  version  of 
the  theme  was  repeated.  The  processions  of  the  elders  at  Ripoll  (Ill. 
585)  and  S.  Isidoro  of  Leon  (Ill.  696)  are  not  derived  from  Chartres, 
but  more  probably  from  Cluny  directly. 

The  motive  of  spandrel  figures,  which  we  have  seen,  came  to  the 
portal  of  Cluny  from  Roman  mosaics,^  spread  from  Cluny  to  the 
School  of  the  Pilgrimage.  It  seems  probable  that  the  portals  of 
Santiago  were  influenced  by  the  Burgundian  monastery.  In  the 
destroyed  Puerta  Francigena,  the  composition  of  the  tympanum 
which  represented  Christ  in  an  aureole  surrounded  by  the  evangelists 
was  perhaps  derived  from  Cluny.  The  spandrel  figures  which  still 
exist  in  the  Puerta  de  las  Platerias  (Ill.  675-677)  I  suppose  to  have 
come  from  the  same  source.  At  Cluny  we  know  that  the  spandrel 

^  See  above,  p.  142. 


144  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

figures  represented  the  four  apostles  James,  Peter,  Paul  and  John. 
The  Pilgrim  s  Guide  tells  us  that  at  Santiago  three  of  these  —  James, 
Peter,  John  —  reappeared.  There  can,  therefore,  be  no  question  of  the 
relationship.  This  same  motive  found  its  way  subsequently  to  St.- 
Sernin  of  Toulouse  (Ill.  311,  312),  S.  Isidoro  of  Leon  (Ill.  696,  697, 
700,  701),  S.  Salvador  of  Leire  (Ill.  712-714)  and  La  Madeleine  of 
Chateaudun  (Ill.  1425).  It  was  later  taken  over  by  Nicolo  in  Lom¬ 
bardy,  and  repeated  at  Piacenza,^  Ferrara,^  the  cathedral®  and  S. 
Zeno  ^  of  Verona.  Angels  were  substituted  for  prophets  in  the 
destroyed  metal  altar-piece  of  the  abbey  of  Stavelot,  in  Belgium, 
dating  from  soon  after  1130,  and  known  from  a  drawing  reproduced 
by  Helbig.®  Angels  in  the  spandrels  of  arches  also  appear  at  Bourg- 
Argental  (Ill.  1149),  Notre-Dame  of  Etampes  (Ill.  1460)  and  S. 
Niccola  of  Bari  (Ill.  200). 

At  Cluny,  in  the  inner  row  of  voussures  were  sculptured  under 
little  arches  the  figures  of  fourteen  angels  in  adoration,  and  in  the 
centre,  Christ,  also  under  a  little  arch.®  In  the  third  voussures  were 
sculptured  a  series  of  heads  in  medallions.'^  It  seems  probable  that 
we  have  here  the  prototype  of  the  motive  of  voussure  sculptures  de¬ 
veloped  in  the  West  into  forms  of  such  loveliness. 

The  angels’  heads,  without  the  little  arches,  were  reproduced  in 
Apulia,  in  the  archivolt  of  the  cathedral  of  Monopoli  (Ill.  158-162) 
begun  in  1107.  At  Conversano  in  Apulia  (Ill.  179)  the  motive  of 
heads  in  medallions  is  also  introduced  in  the  archivolt.  This  portal 
is  a  dated  monument  of  1159-1174.® 

^  llustrated  in  Porter,  Lombard  Architecture,  IV,  Plate  i8i,  Fig.  i. 

^  Illustrated  ibid.,  Plate  88,  Fig.  3. 

^  Illustrated  ibid.,  Plate  217,  Fig.  5. 

^  Illustrated  ibid.,  Plate  225,  Fig.  2.  ^ 

®  La  premiere  archivolte  qui  couronnait  le  bas-relief  se  composait  d’une  suite  de  petits 
cintres,sous  chacun  desquels  etaient  des  anges  en  adoration,  hors  dans  celui  du  milieu  qu’occu- 
pait  le  P^re  eternel.  (Lorain.) 

^  Deux  autres  archivoltes  concentriques  a  la  precedente  presentaient  la  premiere  des  feuil- 
lages,  et  la  seconde,  des  medallions  d’ou  sortaient  des  tetes  routes  variees  d’expression.  {Ibid.) 

®The  dates  were  misread  1369  and  1373  by  Schulz,  I,  94.  The  inscription  is; 
t  A.  D.  M.  C.  LIX.  PSES  ECCLIA.  CU.  EP.  ALIS.  ICEPTA  FUIT. 

PSIDETE.  DNO.  P.  DE  ITO.  EPO  CVP(ER)SAN.  PTER.  T.  T.  IPP  ECC. 

ET  FINITA.  TEPOR.  EIUSDE.  A.  M.  C.  LXXIIII.  Q.  FI^I  FE 

CIT.  P(RO)RIS.  SUPTIB.  HOSPICIU.  NOUU.  SIC.  P(RO)TEDIT.  A.  CAPPE 


CLUNIAC  ART  OUTSIDE  OF  BURGUNDY 


145 


The  archivolt  of  Calvenzano  in  Lombardy  ^  has  radiating  com¬ 
partments  like  those  of  the  tympanum  of  Vezelay  (Ill.  47-49)  also 
suggesting  proto-voussures.  The  style  of  Calvenzano  is,  however, 
far  more  primitive  than  that  of  Vezelay,  being,  indeed,  allied  to  that 
of  the  sculptures  in  another  Cluniac  priory  of  Lombardy,  Pontida.^ 
The  latter  are  dated  1095.  Pontida,  in  turn,  seems  to  be  stylistically 
related  to  the  capital  of  the  nave  of  Cluny  (Ill.  10). 

The  heads  in  medallions  of  the  third  archivolt  of  the  portal  at 
Cluny  reappear  in  the  archivolt  at  Bourg-Argental  (Ill.  1149).  Evi¬ 
dently  then  the  sculptor  of  this  remarkable  portal  knew  Cluny.  The 
zodiac  of  his  outer  archivolt  is  placed  under  little  arches,  precisely 
as  had  been  the  angels  of  the  Cluny  archivolt.  Clearest  proof  of  all, 
the  composition  of  the  tympanum  with  the  Majestas  Domini  and 
angels  is  clearly  derived  from  the  tympanum  of  Cluny. 

But  Cluny  was  far  from  being  all  that  the  sculptor  of  Bourg- 
Argental  knew.  The  figures  in  relief  at  the  summits  of  his  archivolts 
have  a  curiously  Catalan  air,  and  bring  to  mind  the  much  later  work 
at  Agramunt  (Ill.  633). 

It  is,  however,  with  the  work  of  the  Lombard  sculptor  Nicolb  that 
the  Bourg-Argental  portal  shows  the  most  striking  analogies.  The 
very  idea  of  a  porch  in  relief,  supported  on  columns  rising  above  the 
archivolts,  is  without  analogy  in  France,  but  is  an  evident  modifica¬ 
tion  of  the  Lombard  porch  used  by  Nicolb  at  Piacenza,®  at  Ferrara  ^ 
and  at  the  cathedral  ®  and  S.  Zeno  ®  of  Verona.^  The  rinceau  and 

LLA.  IFF.  HOSPICII.  USQ.  AD.  ECCLIA.  ET  META.  ALIA.  BNFlA. 

FECIT^ITUS.  ET.  EX.  CIUITATE.  CUIUS.  ANIMA.  REQUIE 

SCAT.  I.  PAC.  AMEN. 

^  Illustrated  in  Porter,  Lombard  Architecture,  IV.  Plate  42,  Fig.  7. 

^  Illustrated  in  Porter,  Lombard  Architecture,  Plate  189,  Fig.  i,  2. 

^  The  work  of  Nicolo  at  Piacenza  is  illustrated  in  my  Lombard  Architecture,  Plate  181,  Fig.  i; 
Plate  182,  Fig.  4. 

^  Illustrated  ibid.,  Plate  88,  Fig.  i,  2,  3;  Plate  89,  Fig.  3,  4,  5. 

®  Illustrated  ibid.,  Plate  217,  Fig.  i,  2,  3,  5. 

®  Illustrated  ibid.,  Plate  225,  Fig.  2;  Plate  227,  Fig.  4;  Plate  229,  Fig.  2,  3,  4;  Plate  234, 
Fig.  3. 

^  The  porch  at  Bourg  really  resembles  the  Apulian  porch  of  S.  Niccola  at  Bari  (Ill.  200)  more 
closely  than  any  of  the  Lombard  examples,  not  only  because  of  the  angels  in  the  spandrels  (see 
above,  p.  144),  but  also  because  the  columns  are  carried  to  the  level  of  the  top  of  the  archivolts, 
whereas  in  Lombardy  the  capitals  are  at  the  level  of  the  imposts  of  the  archivolts.  The  col¬ 
umns  are  however  restored. 


146  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

guilloche  beneath  the  lintel  are  very  similar  in  feeling  to  those  of  the 
Ferrara  and  Verona  portals.  The  lintel  is  divided  into  a  series  of 
arcades  by  little  arches  supported  on  colonnettes,  and  in  these  ar¬ 
cades  are  sculptured  reliefs.  Now  this  motive,  we  have  already  seen, 
is  characteristic  of  the  work  of  Nicolb,  being  found  at  Piacenza,  at 
Ferrara  and  at  S.  Zeno  of  Verona,^  but  is  exceedingly  rare  in  France.^ 
Moreover,  the  analogies  in  the  execution  of  this  series  of  reliefs  in 
arcades  at  Bourg  and  in  the  works  of  Nicolb  are  close.  Thus  in  the 
spandrels  of  the  arches  at  Bourg  are  little  circular  turrets ;  these  re¬ 
appear  at  both  Ferrara  and  Piacenza.  In  both  cases  the  colon¬ 
nettes  of  the  arcade  are  decorated  with  diaper  patterns ;  now  the 
spiral  which  occurs  on  the  two  extreme  colonnettes  at  Bourg  is  the 
same  as  that  on  the  colonnette  between  the  Baptism  and  the  Flight 
at  Piacenza.  The  second,  fourth  and  fifth  colonnettes  at  Bourg  have 
a  pattern  of  interlacing  strings ;  so  has  the  colonnette  in  the  midst 
of  the  Piacenza  Temptation.  The  Adoration  of  the  Magi  at  Bourg 
is  the  only  subject  which  is  given  more  space  than  a  single  arcade;  it 
runs  over  into  three.  Similarly  at  Ferrara  the  same  subject  is  the 
only  one  accorded  more  than  a  single  arcade.  The  iconography  of 
Bourg  follows  incident  for  incident  that  of  the  north  portal  at  Pia¬ 
cenza,  with,  however,  the  peculiarity,  common  in  mediaeval  copies, 
that  the  composition  is  reversed.  The  Visitation  at  Bourg  repro¬ 
duces  line  for  line  the  Visitations  at  Piacenza  and  especially  at  Fer¬ 
rara  ;  ^  the  posture  of  the  arms,  the  placing  of  the  figures,  even  the 
facial  types  are  the  same.  The  Virgin  in  the  Adoration  at  Bourg  is  a 
reversal  of  the  Virgin  in  the  same  subject  at  Piacenza.  In  the  scene 
of  the  Nativity,  the  Christ  Child  appears  in  the  same  cradle,  wrapped 
in  the  same  swaddling  clothes,  and  below  the  same  ox  and  ass  at 
Ferrara  and  at  Bourg.  Inscriptions  are  placed  on  the  horizontal 
bands  dividing  or  limiting  the  composition  at  both  Bourg  and  Pia- 

^  See  above,  p.  133. 

^  The  only  analogy  I  know  north  of  the  Alps  is  the  font  at  Hulla,  illustrated  by  Roosval, 
Taf.  XII. 

®  The  same  composition  is  found  on  a  capital  of  Gargilesse  (Ill.  83)  and  on  the  voussures  of 
St.-Loup-de-Naud  (Ill.  1492). 


CLUNIAC  ART  OUTSIDE  OF  BURGUNDY 


147 


cenza.  The  horse  of  the  magi  at  Bourg  repeats  line  for  line  the  horse 
of  the  Flight  in  the  Piacenza  archivolt,  except  in  the  head,  where  the 
inferior  sculptor  found  himself  unable  to  copy  his  model.  Finally, 
the  important  motive  of  jamb  sculptures,  which  is  one  of  the  most 
striking  characteristics  of  the  Bourg  portal,  is  also  found  in  Nicolb’s 
jambs  at  Ferrara  and  the  cathedral  of  Verona. 

A  hand  as  crabbed  and  constipated  as  that  which  we  have  learned 
to  know  in  the  portal  at  Bourg-Argental  —  if  indeed  it  be  not  the 
same  —  reappears  in  the  lintel  now  in  the  wall  adjoining  the  fagade 
of  the  church  of  St.-Martin-d’Ainay  at  Lyon.  There  is  the  same 
jerky  dividing  up  of  the  lintel  into  separate  compositions ;  the  same 
use  of  arcades ;  the  same  square  undercutting ;  the  same  puggy  faces ; 
the  same  scratched  draperies.  The  Lyon  relief  shows,  however,  less 
evidently  the  influence  of  Cluny  and  Nicolo. 

Are  we  to  conclude  from  this  that  the  sculptor  of  Bourg  was  a 
native  of  Lyon  or  of  the  Rhone  valley  ?  The  fact  that  this  relief  is  the 
only  work  in  the  region  related  to  his  style  would  seem  to  indicate 
that  such  is  not  the  case.  The  capitals  of  the  choir  of  St.-Martin- 
d’Ainay  belong  to  the  church  consecrated  in  1107;  they  are  rough 
works  ^  obviously  influenced  by  Guglielmo  da  Modena,  and  not 
without  points  of  contact  with  the  capitals  of  Gofridus  at  Chauvigny 
(Ill.  904,  905)  and  the  sculptures  of  Ste.-Radegonde  of  Poitiers  (Ill. 
907-91 1).  Except,  however,  for  the  common  fact  of  crudity  and 
Lombard  influence,  they  show  no  points  of  contact  with  the  portal 
at  Bourg,  which  must  be  besides  some  thirty  years  later.  The  capi¬ 
tals  of  the  nave  at  St.-Martin-d’Ainay  are  polished  works  of  the 
school  of  Burgundy,  at  the  opposite  pole  from  Bourg.  Nor  do  the 
sculptures  of  the  Manecanterie  at  Lyon  (Ill.  1243,  1244)  offer  analo¬ 
gies  with  those  of  our  sculptor.  The  Bourg  artist  has,  therefore,  little 
connection  with  the  school  of  Lyon. 

To  understand  the  real  character  of  this  sculptor,  we  must  imagine 
him  divested  of  the  superficial  elements  which  he  evidently  absorbed 
from  the  study  of  highly  polished  works  like  the  portal  of  Cluny  and 

^  Good  illustrations  in  the  Cong.  Arch.,  LXXIV,  530,  532. 


148  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

the  sculptures  of  Nicolo.  It  is  reasonable  to  suppose  that  from  such 
masterpieces  he  must  have  borrowed  not  only  the  formulae  of  certain 
compositions,  but  also  details  of  style,  the  handling  of  draperies,  a 
certain  restraint.  Now  if  we  imagine  the  sculptor  of  the  Bourg  portal 
stripped  of  the  Cluniac  and  Nicolb-esque  influences,  we  should  have 
left  a  personality  strangely  like  that  of  the  master  of  the  cloisters  of 
S.  Orso  at  Aosta,^  The  all-over  decoration  applied  to  the  colonnettes 
at  Bourg  (Ill.  1 149)  recalls  the  decorated  columns  characteristic  of  the 
Aosta  school,  and  found,  for  example,  in  the  pulpit  at  Isola  S.  Giulio.^ 
The  strong  classic  feeling  in  the  cornice  of  the  Bourg  portal  is  analo¬ 
gous  to  the  classic  feeling  in  the  pulpit.  Many  technical  details  are 
common  both  to  the  Aosta  cloisters  and  the  Bourg  portal.  Thus  the 
curious  little  trick  of  finishing  the  lower  end  of  the  sleeve  with  a  series 
of  concentric  rings  like  bracelets  occurs  on  the  right  arm  of  Rebecca 
at  Aosta,  and  on  the  right  arm  of  the  Deity  at  Bourg-Argental ;  the 
same  strange  hair  convention  appears  in  the  Jacob  at  Aosta  and  in 
the  Deity  at  Bourg;  the  beards  of  the  same  two  figures  are  exactly 
alike ;  so,  too,  the  moustache  and  the  mouth ;  the  same  widely  spread¬ 
ing  broad  noses  are  found  in  both;  Jacob’s  skirts  at  Aosta  resemble 
those  of  the  Deity  and  first  magus  at  Bourg ;  the  convention  for  the 
eyes  is  precisely  the  same  in  both  works,  and  different  from  any  other, 
to  the  extent  of  my  knowledge,  in  mediaeval  art ;  the  cowl  of  Rebecca 
at  Aosta  is  not  without  points  of  contact  with  the  cowl  of  Elizabeth 
at  Bourg.  The  figure  of  Nebuchadnezzar  eating  grass  on  one  of  the 
capitals  of  Bourg  is  particularly  close  to  the  figures  at  Aosta.  The 
most  convincing  similarity  of  all,  however,  is  a  certain  feeling  of  the 
personality  of  the  artist,  a  comic  uncouthness,  a  jerkiness,  which  is 
toned  down  at  Bourg  by  the  influence  of  more  refined  sculptors,  but 
which  still  shows  through,  while  it  is  unrestrained  at  Aosta.^ 

^  Illustrated  in  my  Lombard  Architecture,  IV,  Plate  13,  Fig.  i,  3;  Plate  14,  Fig.  i,  2,  3; 
Plate  15,  Fig.  3. 

^  I  have  illustrated  this  pulpit  in  the  American  Journal  of  Archaeology,  1920,  XXIV,  126. 
It  was,  I  suppose,  from  Lombardy  that  the  motive  found  its  way  to  St.-Denis  (Ill.  1443,  1444). 

^  Before  leaving  Bourg-Argental  and  the  subject  of  Italian  influences  in  France,  I  take  ad¬ 
vantage  of  the  opportunity  to  add  two  notes  to  the  study  of  the  style  of  Nicolo  which  I  have 
already  published  in  my  Lombard  Architecture  (I,  I’-i'j  f.).  The  first  is  that  the  draperies  of 


CLUNIAC  ART  OUTSIDE  OF  BURGUNDY 


149 

Let  us  now  return  to  the  study  of  the  influence  exerted  by  the 
sculpture  of  Cluny. 

It  should  be  remarked  that  the  folds  falling  in  broad  ovals  over  the 
legs  in  the  Grammar  (Ill.  6)  of  Cluny  reappear  in  the  tomb  of  Widu- 
kind  at  Herford  in  Germany.^  This  tomb  Creutz  has  shown  dates 
from  the  very  beginning  of  the  XII  century.  It  gives  then  another 
proof  of  the  early  date  of  Cluny.  The  shoes  and  sloping  shelf  be¬ 
neath  the  feet  of  the  Herford  figure,  as  well  as  the  arch  in  which  he  is 
placed,  recall  not  Cluny  but  Santo  Domingo  de  Silos  (Ill.  669-673). 
The  horizontal  lines  on  the  shelf  are  analogous  to  the  Moissac  clois¬ 
ter  reliefs  (Ill.  262-273). 

The  broad  folds  of  the  drapery  to  the  right  of  the  Externstein^ 
seem  to  show  the  influence  of  Cluny.  The  figure  of  God  above  to  the 
left  is  distinctly  Burgundian,  and  already  suggests  the  manner  of 
Montceaux-l’Etoile  (Ill.  104).  The  Externstein  is  a  dated  monument 
of  1 1 15. 

The  influence  of  Burgundy  soon  spread  to  Auvergne.  The  sculp¬ 
tured  capitals  of  the  ambulatories  of  Clermont-Ferrand,  Issoire,  St.- 
Nectaire,  Volvic,  merely  repeat  the  motive  initiated  at  Cluny.  The 
horizontal  band  running  about  the  capital  at  Issoire  representing  the 
Last  Supper  (Ill.  1214),  formed  by  the  table,  and  cutting  the  capital 
in  two  parts,  is  a  reminiscence  of  the  capital  of  the  Tones  at  Cluny 
(Ill.  8).  The  virtues  of  the  Psychomachia  capital  at  Clermont-Fer¬ 
rand  (Ill.  1182)  are  copies  of  the  Prudence  of  Cluny.  We  have  al¬ 
ready  seen  ^  that  the  St.  Sebastian  capital  at  St.-Nectaire  is  a  copy 
of  the  capital  of  the  Tones  at  Cluny  (Ill.  7).  At  Gargilesse  (Ill.  82, 
83)  and  St.-Reverien  (Ill.  100-103)  are  sculptures  completely  Bur- 

Nicolo  at  S.  Zeno  of  Verona,  executed  in  1138,  already  show  the  influence  of  those  of  St.-Denis, 
begun  in  1137  —  a  remarkable  example  of  the  celerity  with  which  artistic  ideas  were  trans¬ 
mitted  across  Europe  in  the  XII  century.  The  second  is  that  the  composition  of  Nicolb’s  reliefs 
at  S.  Zeno,  especially  the  Creation  of  Eve  and  the  Creation  of  the  Animals,  is  analogous  to  the 
Salerno  altar-frontal. 

^  Illustrated  by  Creutz,  Taf.  Ill,  b. 

^  Illustrated  ibid.^  Taf.  V. 

®  See  above,  p.  94. 


150  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

gundian  in  style.  They  are  both  among  the  inspired  productions  of 
mediaeval  art. 

In  the  museum  at  Toulouse  are  preserved  fragments  coming  from 
the  destroyed  cloister  of  St.-Etienne  (Ill.  434-449).  These  consist  of 
five  capitals  and  twelve  reliefs  representing  the  apostles.  The  reliefs 
originally  belonged  to  the  jambs  of  the  portal  of  the  chapter-house. 
There  are  four  pairs  coupled  together,  and  four  single  figures.  An 
old  drawing^  seems  to  show  that  there  was  a  pair  and  two  single 
figures  on  either  jamb;  the  position  of  the  remaining  two  pairs  of 
figures  is  not  indicated,  and  it  is  far  from  being  certain  how  far  the 
drawing  is  to  be  trusted.  St.  Andrew  and  St.  Thomas  (Ill.  434)  are 
distinguished  among  the  apostles  by  inscriptions  with  their  names ; 
St.  Peter  (Ill.  440)  may  be  recognized  by  his  keys;  the  apostle 
coupled  with  him  carrying  a  book  (Ill.  440)  may  be  St.  Paul ;  and 
St.  Philip  carries  a  cross  with  a  double  bar  (Ill.  443).  The  others  can 
not  be  identified. 

The  two  labelled  statues  of  St.  Andrew  and  St.  Thomas  were  also 
signed.  Each  bore  at  the  base  an  inscription  with  the  name  of  Gila- 
bertus  —  Gilbert.  These  inscriptions  have  been  broken  away  with 
the  exception  of  the  initial  letter  “G,”  but  are  known  from  copies  in 
old  catalogues  of  the  museum. ^ 

The  hand  of  Gilbert  may  be  found  not  only  in  the  two  signed 
statues  of  the  Toulouse  museum.  The  Virgin  of  the  Cloister  at 
Solsona  in  Catalonia  (Ill.  552)  is  in  my  opinion  also  his  work.® 

If  we  compare  this  Virgin  (Ill.  552)  with  the  Toulouse  St.  Thomas 
(Ill,  436),  we  perceive  that  the  facial  type  is  similar  —  both  heads 
are  imprinted  with  the  same  grave  beauty.  The  drawing  of  the  eye 
in  the  two  is  identical.  The  right  hand  of  the  Solsona  Virgin  is  the 
same  as  the  right  hand  of  the  Toulouse  St.  Thomas.  In  both  the  gar- 

'  Nodier,  Taylor  et  de  Cailleux,  Languedoc,  PI.  29-30. 

^  In  the  catalogue  of  1818  the  inscriptions  are  given  :  (under  the  St.  Thomas)  Gilabertus  me 
fecit  (87);  (under  the  St.  Andrew)  Vir  non  incertus  me  celavit  Gilabertus  (88).  The  inscrip¬ 
tions  are  given  in  the  same  form  in  the  two  catalogues  of  du  Mege  of  1828  (107,  310)  and  1835 
(200)  and  in  that  of  Roschach  of  1865. 

®  This  statue  has  been  published  by  Riu,  who  believed  it  to  be  a  work  of  the  VIII  century. 


CLUNIAC  ART  OUTSIDE  OF  BURGUNDY 


151 

ments  are  trimmed  with  an  elaborate  border;  ^  now  the  pattern  of 
this  border  consisting  of  circles  in  squares  with  a  border  of  dots  is  the 
same  in  the  border  running  diagonally  over  the  Virgin  s  breast,  and 
the  neck  band  of  the  St.  Thomas.  The  draperies  are  extraordinarily 
alike ;  in  both  the  surface  is  covered  with  a  net-work  of  fine  lines ;  the 
peculiar  and  characteristic  folds  of  the  right  shin  of  the  St.  Thomas 
and  the  left  shin  of  the  St.  Andrew  are  but  slightly  varied  on  the  left 
shin  of  the  Virgin ;  the  folds  of  the  draperies  on  the  Virgin  s  right 
knee  are  like  those  below  St.  Andrew's  left  hand ;  the  draperies  of  St. 
Andrew's  right  sleeve  are  repeated  on  the  thigh  of  the  Child  at 
Solsona ;  all  three  figures  have  the  same  narrow,  sloping  shoulders. 

When  we  turn  to  the  remaining  apostles  of  the  St. -Etienne  series 
with  the  knowledge  of  the  personality  of  Gilbert  gained  from  these 
three  statues,  it  is  at  once  clear  that  they  are  not  by  his  hand.  We 
have  only  to  put  the  St.  Philip  (Ill.  443)  beside  the  real  works  of  Gil¬ 
bert  to  perceive  how  utterly  different  and  how  much  inferior  it  is. 
The  refinement  and  delicacy  of  Gilbert  are  at  the  opposite  pole  from 
the  rough  vigour  of  this  Toulousan  master.  This  same  inferior  hand 
appears  in  the  apostle  now  beside  the  St.  Philip  (Ill.  443).  The  head 
of  this  figure  (Ill.  442)  is  an  attempted  imitation  of  the  head  of  Gil¬ 
bert  (Ill.  436) ;  but  how  weak  in  comparison  !  It  is  clear,  therefore, 
that  in  the  apostles  of  St.-Etienne  we  have  two  sculptors  at  work  — 
Gilbert  who  did  with  his  own  hand  the  St.  Andrew  and  the  St. 
Thomas;  and  a  Toulousan  assistant  who  did  the  St.  Philip  and  the 
companion  apostle. 

The  remaining  apostles  at  Toulouse  are  the  work  of  the  inferior 
master,  who,  however,  consciously  imitated  Gilbert.  It  is  probable 
that  Gilbert  even  personally  touched  up  in  places  the  work  of  his 
companion,  just  as  the  head  master  at  Chartres  touched  up  the  work 
of  the  St.-Gilles  master,  and  the  draperies  of  the  Etampes  master 
(for  example,  the  lower  part  of  the  inner  figure  of  the  north  jamb  of 


^  Such  borders  to  garments  hardly  appear  in  French  sculpture  before  the  time  of  Gilbert. 
They  are,  however,  of  much  more  ancient  origin,  since  they  are  found  in  the  art  of  the  Far  East 
from  a  very  early  period. 


152  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

the  northern  portal).  Thus  at  Toulouse  in  the  St.  Peter  (Ill.  440)  and 
the  St.  Paul  (Ill.  440)  border  ornaments  such  as  we  have  learned  to 
recognize  as  characteristic  of  Gilbert  are  introduced;  on  the  left- 
hand  edge  of  St.  Peter  s  drapery  is  the  same  ornament  of  little  dots  as 
in  the  corresponding  positions  of  the  St.  Andrew  (Ill.  434)  and  the 
St.  Thomas  (Ill.  436) ;  the  drapery  of  St.  Peter  s  right  thigh  repeats 
that  of  the  right  thigh  of  St.  Thomas;  the  zig-zags  in  which  it  ends  are 
identical ;  the  draperies  of  St.  Peter's  right  shin  are  like  those  of  St. 
Thomas'  right  shin ;  the  curious  little  zig-zag  ornament  on  the  folds 
is  the  same.  The  folds  of  St.  Peter's  under-garment  are  the  same  as 
those  in  the  corresponding  position  of  St.  Thomas.  Yet  we  have  only 
to  compare  the  hands,  or  the  faces,  or  the  proportions  or  the  com¬ 
position  of  the  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul  with  the  St.  Andrew  and  the  St. 
Thomas^  to  perceive  that  the  former  can  not  be  by  Gilbert,  but  must 
on  the  contrary  be  by  his  assistant,  working,  however,  under  his 
direction,  and  perhaps  with  his  help. 

A  similar  problem  is  offered  by  the  capitals  of  St.-Etienne  (Ill. 
444-449).  These,  like  the  apostles,  show  a  sliding  scale  of  style. 
That  representing  the  Passion  of  the  Baptist  (Ill.  446)  is  most  like 
Gilbert ;  then  that  representing  the  Wise  Virgins  (Ill.  445) ;  the 
others  somewhat  less  so.  The  evidences  of  relationship  between 
these  capitals  and  the  style  of  Gilbert  are  numerous  and  striking. 
The  facial  types  are  similar;  the  draperies  in  both  cases  are  in¬ 
dicated  by  a  net-work  of  fine  lines ;  the  garments  have  the  same 
borders  as  those  of  Gilbert ;  the  crown  of  Herod  is  not  unlike  that  of 
the  Virgin  of  Solsona  (Ill.  552) ;  the  sceptre  of  the  Virgin  at  Solsona 
is  identical  with  that  of  the  Virgin  of  the  Toulouse  Adoration  (Ill. 
447) ;  the  beaded  slipper  of  the  Solsona  Virgin  reappears  in  the  Tou¬ 
louse  Salome  (Ill.  446) ;  the  star-inscribed  halos  of  the  capitals  are 
like  those  of  Gilbert’s  assistant  (Ill.  436-443).^ 

*  This  motive  was  probably  of  Byzantine  origin,  and  found  its  way  into  the  art  of  China  and 
Japan  as  well  as  into  that  of  the  Occident.  It  was  very  widely  diffused  in  Europe.  We  find  it, 
for  example,  in  the  Ada  gospels  of  Treves,  Bib.  de  la  Ville,  No.  22,  illustrated  by  Boinet,  PI. 
VIII ;  in  the  IX  century  Gospel  of  Lorsch,  Rome,  Vat.  Pal.  Lat.,  50,  illustrated  ibid.,  PI.  XVII; 
in  the  IX  century  Gospel  of  St.-Medard  of  Soissons,  Bib.  Nat.  lat.  8850,  illustrated  by  Boinet, 


CLUNIAC  ART  OUTSIDE  OF  BURGUNDY 


153 


Nevertheless,  these  capitals  are  all  of  inferior  quality  to  the  au¬ 
thentic  work  of  Gilbert,  and  must,  I  think,  be  the  work  of  another 
assistant  working  under  his  direction.  The  Wise  Virgins  (Ill.  444), 
for  example,  display  a  heavy  stocky  character,  which  is  certainly  not 
that  of  Gilbert’s  figures.  The  heads  are  too  big,  the  legs  are  too  short. 
The  square  hunchy  shoulders  of  the  second  virgin  from  the  left 
contrast  strongly  with  Gilbert’s  slim  slinking  shoulders.  The  legs  of 
the  virgins,  especially  those  which  are  crossed,  seem  to  lack  knees ; 
they  are  round  and  heavy,  very  different  from  Gilbert’s  slender, 
well-articulated  legs.  The  handling  of  the  drapery  is  heavy  and 
stupid ;  the  folds  are  meaningless  copies  of  Gilbert’s  formulae,  not 
understood ;  the  attack  entirely  lacks  Gilbert’s  crispness.  The 
clumsy  hands  are  not  Gilbert’s  hands,  and  are  too  large  for  the 
bodies. 

The  hand  of  this  assistant  of  Gilbert’s  may,  I  think,  be  recognized 
in  the  tomb  of  St.-Junien  (Ill.  450-452).  The  Virgin  here  (Ill.  451) 
recalls  the  Virgin  of  Solsona  (Ill.  552)  and  that  of  the  Adoration  of 
the  St.-Etienne  capital  (Ill.  447).  Her  bordered  garment  falls  diag¬ 
onally  across  her  breast,  like  that  of  Herod  in  the  St.-Etienne  capital 
of  the  Passion  of  the  Baptist  (Ill.  446).  She  holds  a  sceptre  of  the 
same  peculiar  form  as  the  sceptres  of  the  Virgins  of  the  St.-Etienne 
Adoration  (Ill.  447)  and  of  Solsona  (Ill.  552).  The  posture  of  the 
figure  is  identical,  except  that  the  legs  are  a  little  more  widely  spread 
apart.  All  three  Virgins  are  alike  in  that  the  Child  is  not  held  di¬ 
rectly  in  front,  as  was  usual  in  the  XII  century,  but  naturalistically, 
to  one  side,  as  in  an  Italian  Quattrocento  Madonna.  The  folds  of 
the  drapery  are  very  similar ;  the  borders  of  the  garments  of  the  St.- 
Junien  Christ  (Ill.  452)  have  ornamented  bands.  The  Virgin  at  St.- 
Junien  (Ill.  451)  has  a  star-inscribed  halo,  like  the  saints  at  Toulouse. 
The  faces  are  of  the  same  type.  The  colonnettes  of  the  St.-Junien 

PI.  XXI ;  in  a  Carlovingian  ivory  of  the  IX  century  in  the  British  Museum,  illustrated  by 
Dalton,  PI.  XXII,  42 ;  in  the  frescos  of  the  ceiling  of  Bjeresjd,  illustrated  by  Roosval,  Taf.  LX; 
in  the  tympanum  of  the  Cacilienkirche  at  Cologne  (illustrated  by  Clemen,  788) ;  in  the  Grab- 
stein  der  hi.  Plektrudus  (illustrated  ibid.,  789) ;  in  the  archivolts  of  S.  Marco  at  Venice,  at 
Bamberg,  in  Nicolo’s  sculptures  at  Ferrara,  at  Bourg-Argental,  in  the  vault  sculptures  of 
Crouzilles,  etc. 


154  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

tomb  are  ornamented  with  the  same  patterns  as  the  colonnettes  of 
Nicolo’s  architraves ;  and  we  shall  see  that  there  is  obvious  connec¬ 
tion  between  the  art  of  Nicolo  and  that  of  Gilbert’s  assistant  at 
Toulouse.  The  beards  of  the  elders  at  St.-Junien  are  some  of  them  of 
the  same  type  as  Gilbert’s  Sl  Thomas.  The  drapery  of  the  left  knee 
of  the  elder  in  the  top  row  to  the  left  at  St.-Junien  is  precisely  like  the 
drapery  of  the  left  knee  of  the  Virgin  at  Solsona.  The  folds  between 
the  legs  of  the  elder  to  the  right  in  the  upper  row  at  St.-Junien  are 
identical  with  those  between  the  legs  of  the  Solsona  Virgin. 

There  can  therefore  be  no  doubt  of  the  close  relationship  of  the 
tomb  of  St.-Junien  to  the  atelier  of  Gilbert.  On  the  other  hand,  it 
can  not  be  by  the  master  himself.  We  have  only  to  put  the  photo¬ 
graphs  of  the  tomb  (Ill.  450-452)  beside  those  of  the  authentic 
works  of  Gilbert  (Ill.  434-436,  479,  552)  to  perceive  what  a  great 
difference  in  quality  separates  the  two.  The  dry  plodding  execution 
at  St.-Junien  is  far  inferior  to  that  of  either  the  Solsona  Virgin  or  the 
Toulouse  St.  Andrew  and  St.  Thomas.  The  character  of  the  carving 
is  different ;  the  draperies  are  clumsier,  the  facial  types  less  clarified. 

Now  in  all  these  points  in  which  the  tomb  of  St.-Junien  differs 
from  the  manner  of  Gilbert,  it  resembles  that  of  his  assistant  on  the 
capitals  of  St.-Etienne. 

In  fact,  if  we  make  mental  abstraction  of  the  touches  by  Gilbert 
on  the  St.-Etienne  capitals  (Ill.  444-447)  and  compare  what  is  left 
with  the  St.-Junien  tomb  (Ill.  450-452),  we  shall  perceive  how  very 
much  alike  the  two  are.  The  rounded  jointless  knees  of  the  St.- 
Etienne  Wise  Virgins  (Ill.  444)  which  impressed  us  as  being  so  un- 
Gilbertian,  are  entirely  matched  by  the  upper  angels  about  the  au¬ 
reole  of  the  Virgin  at  St.-Junien  (Ill.  451).  The  crown  of  the  Virgin 
at  St.-Junien  (Ill.  451)  is  exactly  the  crown  of  the  Herod  on  the 
front  face  of  the  St.-Etienne  capital  of  the  Passion  of  the  Baptist 
(Ill.  446).  The  convention  of  representing  the  lower  sleeve  by  a 
series  of  rings,  unthinkable  in  Gilbert,  occurs  constantly  both  at 
St.-Junien  {e.g.,  on  the  sleeves  of  the  Virgin  —  Ill.  451  — )  and  on 
the  Toulouse  capitals  {e.g.^  on  the  right  sleeve  of  the  Wise  Virgin  to 


CLUNIAC  ART  OUTSIDE  OF  BURGUNDY 


155 


the  right  of  Ill.  444).  The  stupid  wattling  of  the  sleeve  of  the  Christ 
at  St.-Junien  (Ill.  452)  or  of  the  figure  with  the  “pudding  cap”  in  the 
St.-Etienne  capital  of  the  Passion  of  the  Baptist  (Ill.  446)  is  equally 
discordant  with  the  manner  of  Gilbert.  The  facial  types  are  pre¬ 
cisely  the  same  at  St.-Junien  and  in  the  St.-Etienne  capitals,  flabbier 
and  less  characterful  than  those  of  Gilbert.  The  draperies,  the  hair 
and  beard  conventions,  the  petalled  halos,  the  drawing  of  the  hands 
are  all  the  same  at  St.-Junien  and  in  the  St.-Etienne  capitals.  It 
seems,  therefore,  clear  that  the  capitals  of  St.-Etienne  are  by  the 
St.-Junien  Master,  with  a  few  retouches  by  Gilbert. 

Comte  de  Lasteyrie,  in  studying  the  tomb  of  St.-Junien,  which  he 
assigned  to  the  school  of  the  West,^  wrote  of  it:  “C’est  une  oeuvre 
d’un  style  remarquable,  s’il  est  vrai  qu’elle  a  ete  executee  par  ordre 
du  prevot  Ramnulfe  au  commencement  du  XIF  siecle.  ”  ^  In  view  of 
the  sad  results  which  have  come  about  from  following  theory  rather 
than  documents  I  am  sorry  to  have  to  confess  that  in  this  case  I 
entirely  share  the  eminent  archaeologist’s  mistrust  of  the  evidence 
of  a  late  chronicle.  It  is  difficult  for  me  to  believe  that  the  tomb  of 
St.-Junien  can  be  earlier  than  about  the  middle  of  the  XII  century. 

When  we  compare  the  Virgin  of  St.-Junien  (Ill.  451)  with  the  Vir¬ 
gin  of  Marseille  (Ill.  1284)  dated  1122,  we  note  a  marked  resem¬ 
blance,  especially  in  the  facial  types.  The  Marseille  Virgin  however 
seems  stiffer,  more  mannered,  more  archaic.  It  seems  as  if  the  St.- 
Junien  Virgin  must  be  notably  more  advanced,  hence  later  than  1122. 

The  St.-Junien  tomb  must  be  later  than  the  St.-Etienne  capitals. 
The  Chartrain  and  Burgundian  character,  which  is  its  most  striking 
characteristic,  can  only  be  due  to  the  influence  of  Gilbert.  There  is 
nothing  in  Languedoc  from  which  it  could  have  sprung.  Neither 
Moissac  (Ill.  360-380)  nor  Beaulieu  (Ill.  409-420)  nor  St.-Antonin 
(Ill.  358,  359)  nor  the  tympanum  of  Conques  (Ill.  392-401)  has  any¬ 
thing  similar  to  show.^  The  facial  types  are  obviously  of  Gilbertian 

1  666. 

^  It  is  only  in  the  Annunciation  of  the  transept  at  Conques  (Ill.  386)  that  we  find  draperies 
which  tend  towards  something  of  the  same  character.  But  even  here  the  difference  is  so  great 
as  to  be  unbridgeable.  The  draperies  of  the  Conques  Annunciation  (Ill.  386)  are  derived  from 


156  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

inspiration,  as  are  also  many  details  of  the  [style  at  St.-Junien,  such 
as  the  petalled  halos,  the  borders  of  the  garments,  the  sceptre  of  the 
Virgin,  the  drawing  of  the  feet  of  the  Christ,  the  position  of  the  Child. 
Since  the  St.-Etienne  capitals  are  not  anterior  to  the  fifth  decade  of 
the  XII  century,  we  are  forced  to  conclude  that  the  St.-Junien  tomb 
can  not  be  earlier  than  1150. 

If,  indeed,  we  compare  the  tomb  of  St.-Junien  (Ill.  450-452)  with 
the  fragments  of  what  must  have  been  a  tomb  very  similar  in  com¬ 
position  at  St.-Sernin  (Ill.  296-305),  we  shall  perceive  at  once  what  a 
wide  gap  stylistically  separates  the  two.  Now  the  St.-Sernin  tomb 
we  have  seen  really  does  date  from  the  early  years  of  the  XII 
century.  It  is  clear  that  St.-Junien  must  be  at  least  half  a  century 
later. 

The  canopies  over  the  elders  on  the  St.-Junien  tomb  (Ill.  450)  are 
totally  different  from  the  canopies  of  the  early  XII  century,  as,  for 
example,  those  of  the  cloisters  of  Moissac  (Ill.  262-273),  a  dated 
monument  of  1 100.  They  are  more  elaborate  than  those  of  the  facade 
of  St.-Denis,  a  monument  of  1137-1140  (Ill.  1441,  1442),  or  of  the 
Area  of  Santo  Domingo  de  Silos  which  dates  from  about  1150.  They 
are,  on  the  other  hand,  very  similar  to  those  of  Cahors  (Ill.  427), 
which  date  from  the  sixth  decade  of  the  XII  century.  This  is  another 
indication  that  the  St.-Junien  tomb  dates  from  shortly  after  1150. 

Still  another  train  of  reasoning  leads  us  to  the  same  result.  The 
draperies  of  the  St.-Junien  tomb  are  very  like  the  work  in  the  side 
portals  at  St.-Gilles.  The  curious  folds  about  the  breast  of  the  Virgin 
at  St.-Junien  (Ill.  451)  are  singularly  like  those  about  the  breasts  of 
the  Synagogue  (Ill.  1385)  in  the  St.-Gilles  tympanum  of  the  Cruci¬ 
fixion.  The  girdle  of  the  Virgin  at  St.-Junien  is  very  like  the  girdle  of 
the  St.  John  in  the  St.-Gilles  tympanum  (Ill.  1385).  The  movement 
of  the  St.-Junien  angels  is  like  that  of  the  St.-Gilles  Synagogue.  The 
folds  about  the  knee  of  the  St.  John  in  the  St.-Gilles  tympanum  (Ill. 
1385)  recall  those  about  the  knee  of  the  St.-Junien  Christ  (Ill.  452). 
The  feeling  of  the  draperies  throughout  the  later  work  at  St.-Gilles 

the  Puerta  de  las  Platerias  at  Santiago  (111.  675-693),  which  is  also  the  ultimate  source  for  the 
Gilbertian  draperies  in  part  at  least. 


CLUNIAC  ART  OUTSIDE  OF  BURGUNDY 


157 


is  very  like  that  of  St.-Junien.  It  is  certain  that  there  must  be  a 
close  connection  between  the  two.  There  are,  it  seems  to  me,  good 
reasons  for  believing  that  the  side  portals  at  St.-Gilles  are  later  than 
the  central  part  of  the  facade  and  may  in  fact  date  from  as  late  as 
about  1180.  St.-Junien  can,  therefore,  hardly  be  earlier  than  1150. 

The  tomb  of  St.-Junien  belongs  indeed  to  an  art  which  is  widely 
diffused,  the  roots  of  which  perhaps  spring  from  Burgundy  and 
which  was  elaborated  in  southern  France  about  the  middle  of  the 
XII  century.  In  addition  to  the  monuments  already  mentioned, 
Nantua  in  Dauphine  (Ill.  1214  a),  the  southern  portal  of  S.  Salvatore 
in  Lucca  (Ill.  225),  the  lintel  of  S.  Giovanni  Fuorcivitas  in  Pistoia 
(Ill.  199)  dated  1162,  and  the  work  of  Benedetto  in  Lombardy  (last 
quarter  of  the  XII  century)  are  closely  related. 

Another  assistant  of  Gilbert  seems  to  have  accompanied  him  into 
Catalonia.  A  column  of  the  cloister  of  Solsona,  which  has  given  its 
name  to  Gilbert’s  Virgin,  is  sculptured  with  four  engaged  figures 
(Ill.  551).  These  are  obviously  related  to  the  apostles  of  St.-Etienne, 
but  are  by  the  hand  neither  of  Gilbert  nor  of  any  of  the  assistants 
who  worked  with  him  on  the  Toulouse  jamb  figures.  Yet  it  is  obvi¬ 
ously  a  production  of  the  atelier  of  Gilbert.  The  draperies  over  the 
heads  of  the  female  figures  of  the  Solsona  column  are  exactly  like  the 
draperies  on  the  heads  of  the  Toulouse  virgins  (Ill.  444).  The  faces 
are  the  same,  with  the  same  small  eyes,  the  same  round  cheeks ;  the 
leaf  of  the  capital  overhanging  the  figures  recalls  the  niche  in  which 
stand  the  Toulouse  apostles ;  there  are  the  same  folds  of  the  draper¬ 
ies,  executed  in  the  same  heavy  way  as  in  the  St.-Junien  tomb  (Ill. 
450-452). 

The  question  remains  whether  the  Gilbert  of  Toulouse  can  be 
identified  with  the  Gilbert  whom  we  have  already  learned  to  know 
at  Autun. 

It  must  be  granted,  to  begin  with,  that  the  manner  of  the  Gilbert 
of  Toulouse  shows  little  connection  with  the  style  of  Languedoc. 
His  delicacy,  his  refinement  are  totally  unlike  any  works  produced 
by  that  school.  We  have  only  to  compare  his  apostles  at  St.-Etienne 


158  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

(Ill.  434)  or  his  Virgin  at  Solsona  (Ill.  552)  with  the  tympanum  of  St.- 
Sernin  (Ill.  309)  or  with  that  already  largely  Burgundian  one  of 
Moissac  (Ill.  340-342)  to  be  convinced  of  the  fact.  He  was  a  for¬ 
eigner  at  Toulouse,  who  introduced  a  strange  and  new  style,  unre¬ 
lated  to  what  had  gone  before. 

Now  as  completely  as  Gilbert’s  style  differs  from  that  of  Langue¬ 
doc,  does  it  resemble  that  of  Autun. 

Let  us  place  Gilbert  of  Autun’s  capital  representing  the  angel  ap¬ 
pearing  to  Peter  (Ill.  79),  beside  Gilbert  of  Toulouse’s  St.  Thomas 
(Ill.  436).  We  perceive  that  the  facial  types  are  identical.  The  beard 
and  hair  conventions  are  very  similar.  The  drapery  on  the  right  leg 
of  the  Toulouse  figure,  and  which  we  have  seen  is  one  of  the  most 
persistent  mannerisms  in  the  work  of  Gilbert  of  Toulouse,  is  identical 
with  that  on  the  left  leg  of  the  Autun  St.  Peter  —  in  each  case  there 
are  three  little  parallel  oval  welts.  The  border  of  St.  Peter’s  sleeve 
has  a  pattern  of  dots  like  the  falling  edge  of  St.  Thomas'  mantle.  The 
ear  of  the  Autun  angel  is  the  same  peculiar  ear  as  the  ear  of  the  Tou¬ 
louse  St.  Andrew  (Ill.  435) ;  the  ear  of  the  Autun  St.  Peter  is  like  that 
of  Herod  in  the  Toulouse  Dance  of  Salome  (Ill.  446).  The  capitals  of 
the  niche  at  Autun  have  foliage  of  the  same  character  as  the  capitals 
of  the  niches  at  Toulouse.  At  Toulouse  and  at  Autun  there  is  the 
same  fondness  for  border  ornaments ;  the  same  pre-occupation  with 
covering  the  entire  surface  with  decorative  lines.  The  feet  are  not 
very  dissimilar  - —  compare  the  St.  Peter  of  the  Autun  tympanum 
(Ill.  80)  with  the  Toulouse  Christ  (Ill.  445).  The  horizontal  bandings, 
so  characteristic  of  Autun,  reappear  on  the  leg  of  the  Virgin  at  SoL 
sona  (Ill.  552)  and  on  the  capitals  of  Toulouse  (Ill.  446).  The  slim 
sloping  shoulders  characteristic  of  Autun  reappear  at  Toulou'se.  The 
legs  of  the  beardless  apostle  holding  a  scroll  at  Toulouse  (Ill.  438) 
have  draperies  very  like  those  of  the  right  leg  of  the  tall  standing 
figure  to  the  left  of  the  Autun  aureole  (Ill.  80).  The  drapery  over  the 
left  knee  of  the  angel  supporting  the  aureole  below  to  the  right  in  the 
Autun  tympanum  (Ill.  81)  is  the  same  as  that  which  falls  from  the 
left  hand  of  the  St.  Andrew  at  Toulouse  (Ill.  434). 


CLUNIAC  ART  OUTSIDE  OF  BURGUNDY 


159 

These  resemblances  make  it  clear  that  the  art  of  Gilbert  of  Tou¬ 
louse  is  the  art  of  Autun.  Since  the  name  Gilbert  is  not  of  the  com¬ 
monest,  the  simple  explanation  seems  to  be  to  suppose  that  at  Tou¬ 
louse  we  have  a  later  phase  of  the  artist  we  have  learned  to  know  and 
admire  at  Autun. 

It  must  be  admitted  that  there  are  notable  differences  between 
his  work  at  Autun  and  at  Toulouse.  The  attenuation  and  movement 
which  are  so  striking  at  Autun  have  disappeared  at  Toulouse ;  the 
manner  is  much  less  exaggerated. 

We  are,  perhaps,  apt  to  underestimate  the  variations  in  manner 
which  mediaeval  artists  might  undergo.  The  cloister  of  Moissac  and 
the  portal  of  Chartres  might  have  been  executed  within  the  life-time 
of  a  single  sculptor.  Obviously  a  man  who  in  1 100  was  working  in 
the  manner  of  Moissac  must  in  1140  have  been  working  in  a  very 
different  manner.  We  are  all  aware  how  versatile  are  living  artists  of 
to-day.  Paradoxical  as  the  statement  may  seem,  it  is  probably  true 
that  mediaeval  sculptors  were  more  individualized,  freer,  less  tram¬ 
melled  by  convention  than  artists  of  the  present  time.  We  have  al¬ 
ready  found  several  instances  in  which  a  sculptor’s  manner  was  not¬ 
ably  altered  by  the  sight  of  a  new  masterpiece. 

Now  differences  of  style  between  the  sculptures  of  Autun  and  those 
of  Toulouse  are  precisely  such  as  we  would  imagine  might  have  been 
produced  upon  a  sensitive  artist  by  an  acquaintance  with  the  work 
which  was  produced  shortly  after  the  completion  of  Autun  at  St.- 
Denis  and  Chartres.  The  obvious  and  close  relationship  between 
Gilbert’s  apostles  at  Toulouse  (Ill.  434-443)  and  the  destroyed 
jambs  of  St.-Denis  (Ill.  1445-1457)  is  well  known ;  since  it  is  not  dis¬ 
puted,  it  is  unnecessary  to  weary  the  reader  by  insistance  upon  the 
fact.  It  seems  to  me  certain  that  Gilbert  of  Toulouse  knew  the  new 
art  of  the  North.  The  problem  consequently  appears  to  be  very 
simply  solved.  Gilbert  of  Autun,  plus  St.-Denis,  equals  Gilbert  of 
Toulouse.^ 

^  That  a  Burgundian  sculptor  should  have  been  called  to  Toulouse  is  to  be  explained  not 
only  by  the  fact  that  Toulouse  was  a  focal  point  of  the  pilgrimage  road,  but  also  by  the  fact 


i6o  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

There  can  be  no  question  that  Gilbert  did  much  to  spread  Bur¬ 
gundian  art  through  southern  France  and  Spain.  His  Virgin  and  the 
column  of  his  assistant  at  Solsona  exerted  great  influence  upon  the 
sculpture  of  Catalonia  and  the  Pyrenees  in  the  second  half  of  the  XII 
century.  They  were,  indeed,  imitated  even  beyond  the  boundaries 
of  Catalonia.  The  column  in  the  cloister  of  St.-Bertrand-de-Com- 
minges  (Ill.  492-495,  497)  must  have  been  inspired  by  that  of  Sol¬ 
sona.  The  draperies  of  the  Annunciation  (Ill.  553-554)  ^  from  the  old 
cathedral  of  Lerida  show  the  covering  of  the  surface  with  fine  lines, 
characteristic  of  the  manner  of  Gilbert.  The  introduction  of  jamb 
sculptures  at  Ripoll  (Ill.  572,  573)  must  be  credited  to  his  account. 
So,  too,  a  group  of  monuments  of  the  very  end  of  the  XII  or  begin¬ 
ning  of  the  XIII  century,  in  which  the  draperies  are  indicated  by  a 
net-work  of  lines  covering  the  entire  surface  of  the  stone  — -  the 
sculptures  at  Perpignan  (Ill.  618-620),  the  tombs  at  Elne  (Ill.  623- 
626),  Arles-sur-Tech  (Ill.  627)  and  St.-Genis-des-Fontaines  (Ill. 
621-622). 2 


that  the  canons  regular  of  St.-Etienne  had  been  put  under  the  jurisdiction  of  Cluny  by  Isamus 
in  1077  (Bruel,  IV,  630). 

^  I  am  indebted  to  Miss  King  for  having  called  my  attention  to  these  sculptures,  and  to  Miss 
E.  H.  Lorober  for  her  photographs  of  them,  which  she  has  kindly  allowed  me  to  reproduce. 

^  These  Catalan  draperies  without  question  also  show  the  influence  of  Tuscan  sculpture. 

The  Tuscan  school  may  be  considered  to  have  been  formed  by  Guglielmo  da  Innspruch  with 
the  production  of  his  Pisa  pulpit  (Ill.  1 86-188)  now  at  Cagliari.  In  this  he  applied  the  draperies 
of  Provence  to  native  Tuscan  figures  and  to  the  type  of  pulpit  which  had  before  his  time  been 
consecrated  at  Pisa  (Ill.  181-185)  and  which  continued  to  be  popular  with  the  Tuscan  school 
until  the  time  of  Giovanni  Pisano.  It  is  a  curious  fact  that  the  supporting  lions  which 
formed  so  characteristic  a  feature  of  Tuscan  pulpits  seem  to  have  been  derived  by  Gugli¬ 
elmo  da  Innspruch,  not  from  neighbouring  Lombardy,  as  might  be  supposed,  but  from  Arles. 
At  least,  the  face  of  the  surviving  lion  of  the  Cagliari  pulpit  (Ill.  188)  seems  to  have  been  in¬ 
spired  by  the  face  of  the  lion  beneath  St.  Peter  on  the  fagade  of  St.-Trophime  (Ill.  1371). 

The  work  of  Guglielmo  da  Innspruch  had  enormous  influence.  He  was  himself  called  to  exe¬ 
cute  the  lintel  of  S.  Bartolommeo  in  Pantano  at  Pistoia  (Ill.  190)  in  1167.  This  introduced  his 
manner  at  Pistoia.  The  artists  who  worked  upon  the  lintel  of  S.  Andrea  in  the  same  city 
(Ill.  191)  were  influenced  by  him,  as  he  was  himself  in  turn  influenced  by  Gruamonte;  and 
Guido  da  Como,  when  many  years  later  he  executed  the  pulpit  at  S.  Bartolommeo  in  Pantano 
(Ill.  234)  could  do  nothing  better  than  copy  Guglielmo’s  Pisa  pulpit  (Ill.  1 86-188).  Guglielmo’s 
“organ-pipe”  draperies  run  through  much  of  the  subsequent  work  in  Tuscany  —  we  recognize 
them  in  the  pulpit  at  Volterra  (Ill.  196),  in  the  lintel  of  S.  Giovanni  Fuorcivitas  of  Pistoia  (Ill. 
199),  in  Biduino’s  western  portal  of  S.  Casciano  of  1180  (Ill.  223),  in  the  lintel  of  the  southern 
portal  of  S.  Salvatore  of  Lucca  (Ill.  225)  and  in  the  pulpit  (Ill.  229)  and  St.  Michael  (Ill.  230) 
of  Groppoli,  of  1194. 


CLUNIAC  ART  OUTSIDE  OF  BURGUNDY 


i6i 


The  capitals  of  St.-Etienne  were  closely,  though  feebly,  imitated 
by  one  of  the  sculptors  who  worked,  perhaps  much  later,  upon  the 
second  campaign  in  the  cloister  of  La  Daurade  at  Toulouse  (Ill.  464- 
471).  The  jamb  sculptures  of  the  chapter-house  of  the  same  priory 
(Ill.  474-479)  obviously  owe  much  to  the  cycle  of  Gilbert  and  his 
assistant. 

Gilbert’s  art  at  Autun  shows  points  of  contact  with  Germany.  His 
extreme  elongation  is  matched  in  certain  miniatures  of  the  XII  cen¬ 
tury.^  A  book-cover  in  the  University  Library  of  Wurzburg  ^  is 
strangely  like  the  Autun  capitals.  The  divided  beard  of  the  St. 
Andrew  possibly  echoes  the  tradition  witnessed  by  the  St.  Paul  of  an 
ivory-carving  in  the  Cluny  Museum  at  Paris,  by  the  Echternach 
master,  dating  from  the  end  of  the  X  century.^ 

In  the  Autun  capital  of  the  angel  appearing  to  St.  Peter  (Ill.  79) 
the  latter  crosses  his  arms  with  a  gesture  which  recalls  in  spirit 
rather  than  in  detail  Sienese  Virgins  of  the  Annunciation  like  the 
Andrea  Vanni  Annunciation  of  Death  in  the  Fogg  Museum.  A 
marked,  though  not  always  definable,  kinship  of  feeling  unites  the 
arts  of  Romanesque  France,  Trecento  Siena  and  Tang  China. 

The  sculptures  at  Malmesbury  in  England  show  strong  Burgun¬ 
dian  influence.  We  have  already  remarked  that  the  southern  tym¬ 
panum  repeats  the  composition  of  Charlieu.  The  style  is  exceed¬ 
ingly  close  to  St.-Sauveur  of  Nevers  —  compare,  for  example,  the 
detail  illustrated  by  Messrs.  Prior  and  Gardner  ^  with  the  St.  Peter 
and  St.  John  capital  in  the  Musee  de  la  Porte  du  Croux  (Ill.  132). 
The  voussures  of  the  southern  portal  ®  are  very  like  those  of  Avallon 
(Ill.  137-138).  All  this  offers  an  interesting  confirmation  of  Prof. 
Moore’s  dating  of  Malmesbury  to  1140,  arrived  at  by  an  entirely 
different  chain  of  reasoning. 

The  type  of  twin  portal  initiated  at  Avallon  was  repeated  at 

^  See,  for  example,  the  Traite  de  Musique,  at  the  Imperial  Library  of  Vienna,  MS.  51,  fol. 
35  VO.,  illustrated  by  Soc.  Fr.  Rep.  Min.  Peint.,  1913,  PI.  XIX. 

^  Illustrated  by  Pelka,  156. 

®The  Toulouse  St.  Andrew  and  St.  Thomas  should  also  be  compared  with  the  Harbaville 
triptych  of  the  Louvre. 


5  Illustrated  by  Prior  and  Gardner,  54. 


i62  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

Oloron-Ste.-Marie  (Ill.  461),  Sauveterre  (Ill.  488)  and  Morlaas 
(Ill.  458)  1  in  France  and  S.  Vicente  of  Avila  (Ill.  844)  in  Spain. 

The  composition  of  the  Presentation  of  the  architrave  of  La 
Charite-sur-Loire  (Ill.  119)  reappears  in  the  wooden  doors  of  St. 
Marien  im  Kapitol  at  Cologne.^ 

The  western  portal  of  St.-Benigne  of  Dijon  (Ill.  144)  inspired  the 
composition  of  the  Portico  de  la  Gloria  at  Santiago  (Ill.  820-840). 

Burgundian  influence  was  also  diffused  through  Chartres.  We 
have  already  seen  that  the  head  master  picked  up  ancient  Burgun¬ 
dian  motives  to  re-use  in  his  central  tympanum  and  lintel.  There 
can  be  no  doubt  that  he  owed  much  else  besides  to  Burgundy,  di¬ 
rectly  or  indirectly.  It  is  only  from  Burgundy  ultimately  that  he 
could  have  derived  his  ideals  of  delicacy  and  refinement.  The  tym¬ 
pana  of  Autun  (Ill.  80,  81)  and  Vezelay  (Ill.  47-49)  offer  prototypes 
of  his  draperies.  Compare,  for  example,  the  folds  and  edge  of  the 
upper  drapery  falling  over  the  right  knee  of  the  seated  apostle  to  the 
right  of  the  aureole  in  the  Vezelay  tympanum  (Ill. 48  a)  with  the  dra¬ 
peries  in  the  corresponding  position  of  the  Christ  at  Chartres.^  Or 
put  the  same  draperies  at  Chartres  beside  those  of  the  right  leg  of  the 
angel  to  the  right  of  the  aureole  at  Autun  (Ill.  81).  Or  compare  the 
bottom  folds  over  the  feet  of  the  Christs  at  Chartres  and  Autun 
(Ill.  81).  The  Master  of  the  Angels  at  Chartres  manifestly  found  the 
inspiration  for  the  lovely  angels  of  the  tympana  of  the  side  portals 
in  the  no  less  lovely  and  more  vigorous  angels  of  the  tympanum  of 
Anzy-le-Duc  (Ill.  96,  97).^  It  is  certain  that  the  school  of  the  West, 


*  It  is  possible  that  Morlaas  may  be  derived  from  St.-Pons. 

^  Illustrated  by  Dehio  und  von  Bezold,  XII,  13. 

^  Illustrations  by  Houvet. 

^,See  the  forthcoming  article  by  Mr.  Priest  in  Art  Studies. 

The  Master  of  the  Angels  at  Chartres  seems  also  to  have  known  ivory-carvings.  His  dra¬ 
peries  recall  an  Ada  group  panel  now  in  the  Victoria  and  Albert  Museum  at  London  (illustrated 
by  Goldschmidt,  I,  No.  14).  The  nervous  line  formed  by  the  upper  garment  cutting  across  the 
knees  of  his  angel  to  the  left  in  the  southern  tympanum  at  Chartres  (Houvet,  PI.  59)  should  be 
compared  with  the  corresponding  drapery  edge  of  the  St.  John  in  the  ivory.  The  drapery  folds 
to  the  right  of  the  left  knee  of  the  St.  John  in  the  ivory  are  like  those  to  the  right  of  the  right 
knee  of  the  angel  to  the  right  of  the  southern  tympanum  at  Chartres  (illustrated  by  Houvet, 
PI.  51).  The  folds  at  the  bottom  of  the  draperies  of  the  angel  to  the  left  of  the  southern  tym¬ 
panum  at  Chartres  (illustrated  by  Houvet,  PI.  59)  are  like  those  of  the  corresponding  position 


CLUNIAC  ART  OUTSIDE  OF  BURGUNDY  163 

which  also  shows  so  many  connections  with  Chartres,  came  under 
the  strong  influence  of  Burgundy;  but  such  close  resemblances  as 
exist  between  Burgundy  and  Chartres  can  not  be  explained  on  the 
supposition  of  an  indirect  influence  of  Burgundy  upon  Chartres  by 
way  of  the  West ;  the  head  master,  and  the  Master  of  the  Angels 
must  have  drunk  at  the  fountain-head. 

Of  the  five  sculptors  who  collaborated  upon  the  western  portal  of 
Chartres,  the  most  Burgundian  is  assuredly  the  master  of  Etampes. 
By  his  hand  are  the  three  northern  jamb  sculptures  of  the  northern 
portal,  less  the  heads  which  do  not  belong  to  the  statues,  and  less 
much  work  upon  the  innermost  figure  which  was  certainly  touched 
up  by  the  head  master.  To  him  should  also  be  credited  considerable 
work  upon  the  capitals  —  we  easily  recognize  his  touch  in  the  Anne 
and  Joachim  story;  but  it  is  difficult  to  be  sure  that  he  may  not 
here  have  been  collaborating  with  another  sculptor.  Certain  cap¬ 
itals,  like  the  Adoration  of  the  Magi,  must  surely  be  the  work  of 
the  St.-Denis  master,  and  others  look  as  though  they  were  the 
joint  work  of  the  Etampes  and  St.-Denis  masters  and  possibly 
other  hands  as  well. 

The  master  of  Etampes  seems  to  have  worked  unaided  upon  the 
portal  at  Etampes  (Ill.  1460-I464). 

His  style  is  strongly  Burgundian,  and  is  close  especially  to  the 
work  of  Gilbert  both  at  Autun  and  at  Toulouse.  He  has  the  border- 
ornaments,  the  characteristic  shin  draperies,  the  leg  bands  we  have 
learned  to  recognize  as  characteristic  of  this  sculptor.  The  braided 
hair  of  the  left-hand  figure  of  the  west  jamb  at  Etampes  (Ill.  1463) 
is  like  that  of  the  Virgin  at  Solsona  (Ill.  552).  The  same  curious  zig¬ 
zagging  occurs  upon  the  fold  of  the  right  thigh  of  the  central  figure 
at  Chartres  and  in  the  folds  at  the  bottom  between  the  legs  of  the 
apostles  at  Toulouse.  The  draperies  which  fall  from  the  left  hand  of 
the  central  figure  of  the  left  jamb  at  Etampes  (Ill.  1463)  are  the  same 


in  the  Virgin  of  the  ivory.  The  flutters  of  drapery  falling  from  the  arms  of  the  two  angels  in  the 
upper  compartment  of  the  ivory,  recall  those  falling  from  the  right-hand  arm  of  the  elder  to 
the  left  in  Houvet’s  Plate  50. 


164  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

as  those  which  fall  from  the  left  hand  of  the  St.  Andrew  at  Toulouse 
(Ill.  434).  The  hand  of  the  St.  Andrew  is  very  like  the  hand  of  the 
innermost  figure  of  the  left-hand  jamb  at  Etampes.  The  pattern  of 
dots  we  have  noticed  as  characteristic  of  Gilbert  is  found  on  the 
border  of  the  book  of  the  central  figure  of  the  jamb  at  Chartres.  The 
draperies  which  flutter  at  the  sides  of  the  angels  in  the  Etampes 
spandrels  (Ill.  1460,  1461)  and  certain  figures  in  the  Anne  and  Joa¬ 
chim  capital  are  very  like  the  draperies  fluttering  behind  Christ  in 
the  Autun  capital  of  the  Temptation. 

These  similarities  made  me  at  one  time  suppose  that  the  master  of 
Etampes  was  only  another  phase  of  the  versatile  personality  of  Gil¬ 
bert.  In  this,  however,  I  was  wrong.  Gilbert  at  Autun  and  Toulouse 
is  refined ;  the  Etampes  master  has  a  streak  of  coarseness  which  can 
not  be  reconciled  with  the  blithe  character  of  the  Autun  sculptor. 
The  rank  folds  of  his  drapery  fairly  out-Charlieu  the  Charlieu  mas¬ 
ter  (Ill.  108-111) ;  we  are  surely  here  at  the  very  end  of  a  decadent 
tradition.  But  the  analogies  between  Gilbert  and  the  Etampes  mas¬ 
ter  abundantly  prove  the  closest  connection  between  the  two ;  each 
must  have  exerted  a  strong  direct  influence  upon  the  other. 

Prof.  Voge  is  inclined  to  identify  with  the  master  of  Etampes  some 
of  the  work  upon  La  Madeleine  at  Chateaudun.  The  rough  drawings 
of  the  destroyed  sculptures  certainly  suggest  in  their  vagaries  the 
work  of  the  master  of  Etampes  (Ill.  1426,  1427) ;  however,  the  frag¬ 
ments  of  sculpture  which  still  remain  in  the  other  portal  seem  to 
show  that  the  Chateaudun  sculptor  was  another,  although  equally 
bizarre,  artist  (Ill.  1428-1430),  who  derives  his  art,  quite  naturally, 
from  such  work  as  the  Wheel  of  Fortune  at  Beauvais  (Ill.  1423, 
1424). 

An  interesting  problem  is  that  of  the  relative  age  of  the  portals  at 
Chartres  and  Etampes.  It  is  the  orthodox  view  that  Chartres  is 
earlier;  but  Dr.  Buschbeck,  one  of  the  most  intelligent  students  of 
Romanesque  sculpture,  has  lately  advanced  the  opposite  view,  un¬ 
fortunately  without  stating  his  reasons.  Mr.  Priest  is  inclined  to 
agree  with  Dr.  Buschbeck.  He  observes  that  the  canopies  at  Char- 


CLUNIAC  ART  OUTSIDE  OF  BURGUNDY 


165 

tres  are  more  elaborate ;  ^  that  the  Etampes  sculptures  show  no  trace 
of  the  influence  of  Chartres,  and  it  is  almost  inconceivable  that  a 
man  who  had  worked  at  Chartres  should  not  have  been  affected  by 
the  style  of  the  head  master ;  that  the  work  of  the  Etampes  master 
at  Chartres  is  unmistakably  finer  and  more  advanced  than  at 
Etampes ;  that  the  work  at  Etampes  struggles  unsuccessfully  with 
several  problems  which  had  been  solved  at  Chartres.  It  is  obvious 
that  Etampes  is  more  Burgundian  than  the  work  by  the  Etampes 
Master  at  Chartres ;  the  figures  have  more  movement,  and  occa¬ 
sionally,  as  in  the  angels  of  the  spandrels,  burst  into  Autunian  agita¬ 
tion  and  swirls. 

These  arguments  seem  to  me  convincing,  and  to  out-weigh  those 
which  may  be  urged  on  the  other  side.  It  must  be  admitted,  how¬ 
ever,  that  the  voussures  at  Etampes  look  more  advanced  than  those 
of  Chartres. 

A  school  of  sculpture  not  unrelated  to  the  master  of  Etampes 
flourished  in  Vienne  about  the  middle  of  the  XII  century.  The  point 
of  departure  for  the  study  of  this  important  and  little  known  group 
of  monuments  is  the  church  of  St.-Andre-le-Bas  (Ill.  1218,  1219). 
An  inscription  on  the  base  of  one  of  the  piers  gives  the  date,  1152, 
and  the  name  of  the  sculptor,  Guillaume,  son  of  Martin. ^  The  style 
of  the  capitals  shows  affinity  with  the  school  of  Provence ;  the  Job 
(Ill.  1218)  repeats  almost  line  for  line  the  right-hand  patriarch  of  the 

^  The  Etampes  canopies  are  probably  a  development  of  those  which  had  been  characteristic 
of  Spanish  monuments  of  the  XI  century,  like  the  San  Isidore  casket  (Ill.  651-653)  or  the 
cloisters  of  Santo  Domingo  de  Silos  (Ill.  671).  They  are  found  in  the  Ile-de-France  in  the  altar- 
frontal  of  St.-Benoit-sur-Loire  (Ill.  1421,  1422),  a  monument  which  adjoins  the  school  of  the 
West,  and  in  the  retable  of  Carriere-St.-Denis,  now  in  the  Louvre  (Ill.  1485),  a  monument 
which  is  by  the  hand  of  a  Western  artist.  In  the  West  itself  the  motive  is  found  in  the  sculp¬ 
tures  of  Giraud  Audebert  at  Foussais  (Ill.  1063).  Did  the  Etampes  master  derive  this  feature 
as  well  as  his  voussures  from  the  West?  At  all  events,  the  motive  spread  to  Spain;  it  was 
adopted  in  the  tympanum  of  Cahors  (Ill.  422)  and  in  the  frieze  of  Carrion  (Ill.  722).  It  is  also 
found  at  Estabaliz  (Ill.  772),  in  a  capital  of  the  Museo  Arqueologico  of  Madrid  (Ill.  792).  In 
Dauphine  we  find  the  Etampes  canopies  copied  in  capitals  of  the  cathedral  of  Vienne:  it  was 
from' this  region,  doubtless,  that  the  motive  was  exported  to  the  Church  of  the  Annunciation 

^^3.z&rcth 

2  ADORATE  DNM  IN  AVLA  SCA  EIV 

+  ET  CV  STATIS  ADORANDV  RE[MI]TTITE  SI  QVID  HABETIS  ADVERSVS 

ALIQVE  VSQ J.XXES  VUES  +  VVILLELMVS  M[ART]INI  ME  FECIT  ANO  MILL, 

C.  LIE  AB  INC  D 


i66  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

Arles  facade  (Ill.  1370)  —  the  two  faces  are,  in  fact,  identical  to  the 
drawing  of  the  cheek-bone  and  the  wrinkles  of  the  nose.  The  Samson 
(Ill.  1219),  on  the  other  hand,  seems  derived  from  the  youth  to  the 
right  in  the  scene  of  the  money-changers  of  the  St.-Gilles  frieze  (Ill. 
1316).  The  facial  type  is  the  same ;  there  is  the  same  wattling  of  the 
sleeves ;  the  drawing  of  the  eye  is  like  that  of  the  master  of  the  St.- 
Gilles  frieze  (Ill.  1316),  the  draperies  are  those  of  Brunus  (Ill.  1302, 
1303,  1306-1311).  Moreover  the  Samson  capital  presents  evident 
affinities  with  the  capital  depicting  the  same  subject,  coming  from 
the  cloister  of  Notre-Dame-des-Doms  ^  at  Avignon,  and  now  in  the 
Fogg  Museum  (Ill.  1342).  There  are  besides  at  Vienne  indications 
of  that  Apulian-Lombard  influence  so  characteristic  of  the  art  of 
Provence.  At  St.-Andre-le-Bas  is  a  Lombard  supporting  figure;  in 
the  museum  which  has  been  gathered  together  at  the  church  of  St.- 
Pierre  are  two  lions,  of  completely  Lombard  character,  and  which 
once  evidently  supported  the  columns  of  a  Lombard  porch ;  a  similar 
one  is  in  a  neighbouring  garden. ^ 

Guillaume  has  left  traces  of  his  activity  not  only  at  St.-Andre-le- 
Bas.  Closely  related  to  him,  if  not  by  his  hand,  is  a  relief  from  the 
tympanum  of  St.-Pierre  (Ill.  1219a);  engaged  sculptures  representing 
St.  Paul  (Ill.  1217),  St.  Peter  (Ill.  1216)  and  St.  John  (Ill.  1215),  now 
in  the  north  porch  of  the  cathedral,  and  perhaps  jambs  from  a 
destroyed  portal ;  a  capital  of  the  cathedral  of  Lyon ;  ®  and  several 
of  the  cathedral  St.-Maurice  of  Vienne.^  Now  the  jamb  sculptures 
of  St.-Maurice  show  manifest  affinity  with  the  jamb  sculptures  of  the 
Etampes  master  (Ill.  1463,  1464) ;  the  garments  have  the  same  bor¬ 
ders,  there  are  similar  leg  bands,  the  posture  of  the  figures  is  evi¬ 
dently  analogous.  Moreover,  several  capitals  of  the  cathedral  have 
canopies  of  the  peculiar  type  characteristic  of  Chartres  and  Etampes 
(Ill.  1463^  1464).  Evidently  then,  the  school  of  Guillaume  was  in- 

*  Labande :  De  Lasteyrie,  631.  A  capital  of  unknown  provenance  representing  the  story  of 
Job  and  now  in  the  Mus^e  Calvet  of  Avignon  (III.  1341)  is  by  the  same  hand. 

^  I  am  indebted  for  these  indications  and  a  photograph  to  Major  Royall  Tyler. 

®  Illustrated  by  B6gule,  106. 

‘Illustrated  ibid.^  116,  121,  122,  131. 


CLUNIAC  ART  OUTSIDE  OF  BURGUNDY  167 

fluenced  by  the  North  as  well  as  by  the  South.  The  spirit  of  his  art 
is  closely  allied  to  that  of  the  master  of  Etampes.  His  spiral  folds  and 
violent  movement  could  only  have  come  out  of  Burgundy.  As  so 
often  in  Romanesque  art,  we  have  influences  converging  from  many 
directions. 

It  is  with  this  group  of  sculptors,  partly  Chartrain,  partly  Bur¬ 
gundian,  partly  Provencal  that  should  be  classed  the  hand  which 
executed  in  far-away  Palestine  and  in  the  year  1187  the  capitals  of 
the  church  of  the  Annunciation  in  Nazareth,  destined  to  remain 
unfinished.^  This  artist  is  a  little  finer,  a  little  more  Burgundian  than 
Guillaume ;  his  draperies  have,  however,  the  same  spiral  folds,  the 
same  heaviness,  the  same  admixture  of  Provengal  elements.  The 
leg  bands  and  borders  of  the  garments  are  like  the  Etampes  master,, 
and  so  is  the  spirit  of  the  execution.  The  canopies  recall  equally 
Chartres  and  Vienne. 

Thus  we  see  the  influence  of  the  art  of  Cluny  extending  as  far  as; 
England,  Galicia,  Germany,  Apulia,  and  even  to  Palestine. 

^  Illustrated  by  Egidi. 


PART  II 


PILGRIMAGE  SCULPTURE 


PILGRIMAGE  SCULPTURE 


I 

THE  PILGRIMAGE  TO  COMPOSTELA 

It  seems,  singularly  enough,  that  the  modern  age  of  creeping 
scholarship  is  moved  by  the  tomb  of  St.  James,  less  universally 
surely,  but  perhaps  hardly  less  potently,  than  the  Middle  Age  of  fly¬ 
ing  faith.  The  cult  of  the  students  began  when  Fita  published,  a  half 
century  ago,  the  itinerary  of  the  pilgrims,  contained  in  the  last  part 
of  the  pseudo-Callistine  codex.  His  was,  certainly,  a  beautiful  dis¬ 
covery  ;  and  a  paper-bound  pamphlet  of  a  few  badly  printed  pages 
has  guided  scholars  toward  the  solution  of  their  difficulties,  much  as 
the  stars  of  the  milky  way  reminded  the  mediaeval  sinner  of  the  road 
to  Compostela.  And  the  modern  pilgrimages  have  also  been  illumi¬ 
nated  with  miracles.  On  the  road  to  St.  James,  M.  Bedier  has  found 
the  key  which  unlocks  mediaeval  literature.  Sceptics  may  doubt 
whether  the  body  at  Compostela  be  that  of  St.  James;  but  it  is 
certain  that  there  lies  buried  the  mystery  of  the  XII  century. 

The  modern  pilgrim  to  Santiago  journeys  those  long,  but  delicious 
kilometres,  not  entirely,  nor  even  chiefly,  to  admire  the  miracles  of 
scholarship  already  performed,  nor  even  in  the  hope  (inevitably  pres¬ 
ent,  however  fatuous)  of  himself  assisting  at  others.  There  is  in  the 
place,  and  in  the  road,  a  singular  poetry.  One  feels,  as  nowhere  else, 
wrapped  about  by  the  beauty  of  the  Middle  Age.  One  is,  as  perhaps 
never  before,  emotionally  and  intellectually  stimulated.  Chords  of 
the  memory,  long  unused,  are  set  vibrating.  The  actuality  of  the  pil¬ 
grimage,  like  a  cosmic  phenomenon,  overwhelms  with  the  sense  of  its 
force,  its  inevitability.  It  seduces  one,  irresistibly,  farther  and  far¬ 
ther  from  his  way,  to  linger  over  every  turning ;  not,  as  the  student  is 
possibly  simple  enough  to  believe,  because  the  pilgrimage  peppered 
the  art  of  Europe  with  stars  and  cockle-shells ;  nor  even  because  of 


172  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

its  deeper  and  more  spiritual  impress  upon  culture,  so  that  to  it  we 
owe  much  that  is  fine  in  Xll-century  music,  the  chansons  de  geste  and 
the  Gothic  cathedrals;  nor  yet  because  of  a  sentimental  sympathy 
with  the  myriad  human  beings  who  trudged  unending  leagues  to  lay 
their  gratitude  and  their  remorse,  their  wealth  and  their  sins  at  the 
feet  of  the  apostle;  nor  because  of  all  these  and  many  other  like 
things  together ;  but  because  of  an  inner  vitality,  whether  poetic  or 
spiritual  I  know  not,  but  still  forcefully  living  at  Santiago,  and  un- 
quenchably  beautiful  there;  beautiful  none  the  less  because  seen 
across  swarms  of  well-fed  priests  and  a  pestilence  of  syphilitic  beg¬ 
gars,  just  as  the  living  Romanesque  core  of  the  basilica  shines  out 
through  an  external  coating  of  barocco,  fine,  too,  in  its  way,  yet 
writhing  in  the  agony  of  dissolution. 

Hardly  less  poignant,  emotionally,  than  the  road  itself,  is  the  twin- 
sister  of  the  road,  the  Callistine  codex.  It  is  regrettable  that  no  com¬ 
plete  edition  of  this  manuscript  has  yet  appeared ;  and  although  the 
different  parts  have  been  separately  printed,  they  are  dispersed 
among  books  all  of  which  are  seldom  to  be  found  in  the  same  library.^ 
The  dividing  up  of  the  manuscript  began  in  the  XVI  century,  when 
some  zealous  cleric,  loving  Saint  James  more  fervently  than  the 
truth,  sought  to  save  the  credit  of  the  Miracles  for  a  sceptical  age  by 
tearing  from  them  the  Chronicle  of  Turpin.  Fita,  in  recent  years,  de¬ 
tected  the  trick,  and  restored  the  codex  to  its  integrity.  But  the 
parts  had  been  edited  separately.  The  absence  of  a  critical  edition  of 
the  entire  codex  is  the  more  unfortunate,  because  appreciation  of  the 
quality  of  the  book  as  a  whole  depends  upon  grasping  its  unity. 

The  codex  opens  with  a  liturgical  introduction,  which  is,  indeed, 
extended  to  disproportionate  lengths.  The  ritual  is  interspersed  with 
sonorous  prophecies,  authentic  and  apocryphal,  and  punctuated  by 
lyrics  and  a  miracle  play. 

The  ultramundane  prologue  is  followed  by  the  intensely  human 

'Lopez  Ferreiro,  Hist.  Sant.,  I,  412  f. ;  Bollandists,  Sanctorum,  t.V\  de  Julio^  47  f. ; 
Castets,  Turpini  Historia  Karoli  Magni,  Montpellier,  Soci6te  pour  I’Etude  des  Langues  Ro¬ 
manes,  1880;  Fita  y  Vinson,  Le  codex  de  Saint  Jacques  de  Compostelle.  Liber  de  Miraculis  sancti 
Jacobi,  Liber  IV.  Paris,  1882. 


THE  PILGRIMAGE  TO  COMPOSTELA 


173 


book  of  the  Miracles.  Tender  as  the  Fioretti,  romantic  as  a  play  of 
Calderon,  this  is  one  of  the  great  imaginative  productions  of  the 
Middle  Ages.  The  legends  deal  with  pilgrims,  and  the  scene  is  the 
road. 

The  next  part  of  the  codex  deals  with  the  end  of  the  pilgrimage, 
the  tomb  of  the  apostle.  His  life  and  passion  are  told;  how  he 
preached  in  Spain ;  how  he  became  bishop  of  Jerusalem ;  and  how  he 
was  beheaded  by  Herod.  But  the  strangest  part  of  the  tale  follows  — 
how  his  disciples  carried  his  body  into  a  boat;  how  they  brought  it 
without  sails  or  rudder  to  Galicia ;  how  it  lay  for  long  centuries  un¬ 
known  ;  and  how  it  was  miraculously  revealed. 

Suddenly  the  codex  becomes  epic.  It  is  the  famous  chronicle  of  the 
pseudo-Turpin.  Saint  James  appears  to  the  emperor  Charlemagne. 
“You  who  have  freed  all  other  lands,  why  have  you  not  freed  my 
land  and  my  road  !”  Charlemagne  becomes  the  first  pilgrim  to  Com¬ 
postela  ;  the  archbishop  Turpin  dedicates  the  basilica.  The  emperor 
conquers  all  Spain ;  at  his  approach  the  walls  of  Pamplona  sink ;  at 
his  curse  Lugerna  is  turned  into  a  salt  lake,  inhabited  only  by  large, 
black  fish.  Before  the  reader  passes  the  glamour  of  chivalry,  the 
superdeeds  of  heroes,  the  Christian  conquering  the  infidel,  the  dream 
of  a  Spain  liberated  from  the  Saracens  by  the  help  of  France.  Against 
this  background  is  woven  the  story  of  Roland  —  his  duel  with  the 
giant  Ferragudo,  the  battle  of  Roncevaux,  and  the  wail  of  the  oli- 
phant,  echoing  through  the  ports  of  the  Pyrenees. 

But  it  is  the  last  book,  the  Pilgrim's  Guide ^  which  for  the  modern 
reader  is  the  most  precious.  Under  the  guidance  of  the  writer,  we 
suddenly  become  Xll-century  pilgrims,  setting  out  on  the  journey  to 
Compostela.  Through  his  eyes  we  see  all.  We  learn  the  details  of  the 
roads  —  the  alternate  routes,  how  they  forked  and  intersected.  We 
journey  across  the  plains  of  France,  through  the  mountains  and 
plateaux  of  Spain.  We  stop  to  worship  at  the  tombs  of  saints  along 
the  way.  Here  and  there  we  catch  glimpses  of  great  Romanesque 
basilicas  just  finished  or  in  building.  We  learn  the  characteristics  of 
various  nations  —  which  peoples  were  kindly,  which  treacherous. 


174  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

which  dirty ;  where  wine  was  good,  and  where  food  was  bad ;  at  what 
places  rivers  could  be  forded,  and  where  inns  or  hospices  afforded 
shelter  for  the  night.  Finally,  our  author  leads  us  into  the  cathedral 
of  Santiago ;  he  shows  us  every  detail  of  the  architecture  and  arrange¬ 
ment.  Through  his  Xll-century  eyes  we  see  the  Xll-centurybasilica, 
We  examine  the  sculptures  in  detail ;  he  patiently  explains  to  us  the 
iconography.  We  compare,  stone  by  stone,  the  existing  church  with 
the  basilica  of  the  XII  century.  Our  eyes  are  no  longer  blinded  by 
the  deceptions  of  eight  centuries.  Mystery  after  mystery  of  XII- 
century  art  is  suddenly  revealed.  What  had  been  most  obscure,  now 
is  evident. 

That  the  codex  might  carry  greater  authority,  the  propagandist 
who  compiled  it  thought  it  well  to  ascribe  the  various  portions  to 
different  well-known  people.  It  is  a  question  immaterial  to  our  pur¬ 
pose  how  far  he  himself  may  have  believed  in  these  attributions,  and 
to  what  extent  he  consciously  fabricated  them.  It  is  certain  that 
those  to  the  archbishop  Turpin  and  the  pope  Callixtus  are  false. 

There  has  been  much  discussion  as  to  the  date  at  which  the  propa¬ 
gandist  did  his  work.  It  was  surely  in  the  first  half  of  the  XII  cen¬ 
tury,  that  is  to  say,  at  a  time  when  the  pilgrimage  had  already  been 
in  full  progress  for  upwards  of  a  hundred  years.  The  pseudo-Callis- 
tine  codex  was,  therefore,  less  a  cause  than  a  product  of  the  pilgrim¬ 
age.  It  is  undoubtedly  this  fact  that  gives  the  book  its  peculiar  vital¬ 
ity.  In  the  last  analysis  it  is  folk-lore,  of  which  the  fundamental 
character  is  not  altered  by  forged  signatures.  The  pilgrimage  grew 
up  spontaneously  in  the  heart  of  the  mediaeval  world;  but  from  an 
early  period  it  was  exploited  by  scheming  clerks. 

Surely  no  capitalist  of  the  XIX  century  ever  promoted  more 
shrewdly,  nor  any  diplomat  of  the  XVI  played  politics  more  cleverly, 
than  the  Cluniac  monks,  who  to,  if  not  for,  their  own  advantage,  set 
all  Europe  a-journeying,  quite  literally,  to  the  ends  of  the  world. 
The  rulers  of  the  great  abbey  were  quick  to  realize  the  success  of  the 
pilgrimage,  and  far-sighted  in  driving,  at  an  early  date,  their  finger¬ 
nails  firmly  into  the  carrot  of  Saint  James. 


THE  PILGRIMAGE  TO  COMPOSTELA 


175 


The  pilgrimage  road  may  be  compared  to  a  great  river,  emptying 
into  the  sea  at  Santiago,  and  formed  by  many  tributaries  which  have 
their  sources  in  the  far  regions  of  Europe.  All  these  streams,  gather¬ 
ing  force  as  they  descend,  flowed  together  at  Puente  la  Reyna, 
whence  the  river  runs  in  its  full  strength  to  Compostela. 

Now  Cluny  possessed  priories  or  affiliations  along  the  pilgrimage 
route  at  St.-Martin-des-Champs  and  St.-Julien-le-Pauvre  of  Paris; 
at  Longpont,  Montlhery,  Vezelay,  Blazimont,  Moissac,  St.-Gilles, 
St.-Jean-d’Angely,  Montierneuf  of  Poitiers,  St.-Eutrope  of  Saintes, 
St.-Martial  of  Limoges,  St.-Etienne  of  Nevers,  Morlaas,  La  Sauve 
Majeure,  -St.-Macaire,  La  Daurade  and  St.-Etienne  of  Toulouse, 
Lezat,  San  Juan  de  la  Pena,  Leyre,  Estella,  Irache,  Najera,  Santa 
Colomba  of  Burgos,  San  Pedro  de  la  Cardena,  Fromista,  Carrion  de 
los  Condes,  Benevivere,  Sahagun,  San  Pedro  de  las  Duehas,  San  Sal¬ 
vador  of  Astorga,  Villafranca,  Ferreiros.^  On  referring  to  the  list  of 
establishments  affiliated  with  Cluny  published  in  the  Bullarium^  one 
is  surprised  to  find  included  in  the  number  not  only  direct  dependen¬ 
cies,  but  cathedral  churches,  colleges  of  canons  and  even  monasteries 
of  other  orders.  Among  the  churches  along  the  road  given  in  this  list 
as  Cluniac  are  :  St.-Vincent  of  Macon,  St.-Philibert  of  Tournus,  the 
cathedrals  of  Autun  and  Narbonne,  St.-Benoit-sur-Loire,  St.-Denis, 
St.-Martin  of  Tours,  the  abbey  of  Bernay,  St.-Pons,  Montmajour, 
St.-Androche  of  Saulieu,  the  cathedral  of  Santiago,  St. -Hilaire  of 
Poitiers,  the  cathedral  of  Pamplona,  Sagra  S.  Michele,  S.  Isidoro  of 
Leon,  the  cathedral  of  Nimes,  the  cathedral  of  Burgos,  Montierneuf 
of  Poitiers,  Beaulieu,  Donzy,  La  Charite-sur-Loire,  St.-Etienne  of 
Nevers,  St.-Martial  of  Limoges.  It  is  therefore  evident  that  Cluny 

^  Bruel,  V,  256  mentions  the  following  Cluniac  dependencies  which  may  have  been  on  the 
road :  S.  Martini  de  Juvia  quod  in  diocesi  Minduniensis  ecclesie  situm  esse  cognoscitur  juxta 
flumen  Juvie  in  territorio  Trasanguis ;  Sancta  Crux,  in  Castanneda,  juxta  ripam  fluminis  quod 
vocatur  Pisuenna;  San  Salvador  de  Comeliana  quod  situm  est  apud  Asturias,  in  territorii  de 
Salas  inter  duo  flumina,  Nouaia  et  Narceia ;  Botinio  in  Gallicia  in  terra  Tuorii,  in  ripa  fluminis 
Munei,  territorio  Rudensi,  prope  ipsam  urbem  Tudam,  ad  radicem  rupis  magne,  que  vocatur 
Vulturaria;  Sancte  Marie,  quod  cognomento  Vimiverium  vocatur  in  territorio  Bracarensi. 
Cf.  also  Marrier,  1746 ;  Prioratus  S.  Saluatoris  de  Villaviridi  in  Gallicia,  Austericensis  diocesis; 
Prioratus  de  Valla-viridi,  in  Gallicia,  Lucensis  diocesis;  Prioratus  S.  Vincentij  de  Palumberiis 
in  Gallicia.  Lucensis  diocesis. 


176  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

held  in  her  grip  the  entire  lower,  and  consequently  richer,  course  of 
the  gold-scattering  stream,  as  well  as  the  strategic  points  of  the  head¬ 
waters. 

The  pilgrimage  to  Saint  James  thus  became  for  Cluny  an  impor¬ 
tant  source  of  material  prosperity.  A  quaint  document  of  ii88  ^ 
shows  that  the  clergy  were  quite  conscious  of  these  benefits.  The 
prior  of  Villafranca  brought  suit  against  the  prior  of  a  neighbouring 
hospital,  because  the  latter  in  peregrinis  sua  jura  injuste  usurpabat  I 
It  is  therefore  not  surprising  that  Cluny  should  have  stood  ready  to 
help  Santiago  to  crush,  or  compromise  with,  rivals  in  relics,  and  in 
every  way  to  foster  the  pilgrimage. 

We  may  gather  from  a  few  instances  the  means  by  which  Cluny 
was  enabled  to  control  even  those  important  churches  along  the  road 
which  were  not  directly  subjected  to  her  discipline.  The  bishop  of 
Santiago,  Dalmatius,  under  whom  the  choir  was  constructed,  and 
who  gave  the  golden  altar,  was  an  ex-Cluniac  monk,  who  returned  to 
Cluny  to  die  in  1095.  Isarne,  who  became  bishop  of  Toulouse  in 
1071,  was  a  strong  supporter  of  Cluny.  In  1074,  donated  the 
locum  de  S.  Genio  to  the  Burgundian  monastery.  Three  years  laterj 
he  made  a  much  more  important  donation  of  the  great  Cluniac  mon¬ 
astery  of  La  Daurade.  He  reformed  his  own  canons,  doubtless  ac¬ 
cording  to  Cluniac  ideas.  We  shall  study  later  his  attempt  to  trans¬ 
fer  St.-Sernin  to  Cluny.  In  1088  and  1096  the  same  bishop  again 
appears  as  the  strong  supporter  of  Cluny.  His  successor,  Amelius, 
gave  a  church  to  Cluny  in  1 1 10 ;  and  in  this  same  year  one  to  Moissac 
and  another  to  Cluny.  Durande,  the  predecessor  of  Isarne,  was  a 
Cluniac  monk  and  abbot  of  Moissac.  It  is  therefore  clear  that  the 
two  crucial  bishoprics  of  Santiago  and  Toulouse  were  completely 
under  the  control  of  Cluny.  Her  alliance  with  the  secular  powers  was 
not  less  firm.  Among  all  the  benefactors  of  the  monastery,  none  was 
so  circumstantially  honoured  as  the  Aragonese  king,  Alfonso.  He, 
doubtless,  was  the  most  generous  of  all  to  the  abbey,  and  it  seems  to 
have  been  chiefly  at  his  expense  that  the  new  church  of  Cluny  was 

*  Buel,  V,  680. 


THE  PILGRIMAGE  TO  COMPOSTELA 


177 


built.  It  is  unnecessary  to  question  the  sincerity  of  his  piety.  But 
one  more  than  suspects  that  he  saw  in  Cluny  a  material  as  well  as  an 
immaterial  comfort.  Cluny  aided  in  bringing  French  pilgrims  to 
Santiago;  these  pilgrims  were  potential  crusaders  capable  of  playing 
an  important  role  in  driving  the  Moors  from  Spain. 

Thus  by  the  skilful  playing  of  many  cards,  bit  by  bit,  the  fame  of 
Saint  James  and  his  road  was  increased.  The  journey  to  Galicia  be¬ 
came  incredibly  popular.  The  only  remaining  rivals  were  Jerusalem 
and  Rome.  The  wisest  policy,  and  the  one  doubtless  at  first  adopted, 
was  to  pool  the  interests  of  all  three,  and  encourage  a  circular  pil¬ 
grimage  which  should  include  the  Holy  Land  and  Italy  as  well  as 
Galicia.  It  was  folly  for  Santiago  to  enter  into  rivalry  with  Jerusa¬ 
lem  and  Rome.  The  bishop  of  Santiago,  Diego  Gelmirez,  nevertheless 
embarked  on  this  ill-advised  course.  The  outstripping  of  Rome  may 
have  been  the  work  the  pseudo-Callistine  codex  was  intended  to  ac¬ 
complish.  We  begin  to  suspect  why  it  was  put  in  the  mouth  of  a 
Roman  pontiff.  At  any  rate  the  doubt  soon  began  to  be  whispered 
abroad,  whether,  after  all.  Saint  James  was  not  greater  than  Saint 
Peter.  In  the  portals  of  many  pilgrimage  churches,  the  son  of  Zebe- 
dee  elbows  from  the  position  of  honour  the  prince  of  the  apostles. 

About  the  pilgrimage  was  thrown  every  lure  that  could  fascinate 
the  mediaeval  mind.  Relics  were  the  passion  of  the  age,  and  these 
in  profusion  were  dangled  before  the  eyes  of  the  intending  pilgrim  to 
Compostela.  The  tomb  of  the  apostle  was  of  course  the  goal  of  his 
journey;  at  Santiago  were  also  the  relics  of  the  lesser  St.  James; 
on  the  way  there  and  back  many  spiritual  treasures  could  be  visited 
with  little  extra  effort.  The  itinerary  of  the  pilgrims  was  arranged 
with  especial  care  from  this  point  of  view.  The  tomb  of  Ste.  Foy  at 
Conques ;  that  of  St.  Trophime  at  Arles ;  that  of  St.  Gilles  in  the 
monastery  of  the  same  name ;  that  of  St.  Guilhem  in  his  desert ;  that 
of  St.  Sernin  at  Toulouse ;  that  of  S.  Isidoro  at  Leon ;  that  of  St. 
Leonard  near  Limoges ;  that  of  St.  Front  at  Perigueux ;  those  of  Ste. 
Radegonde  and  St.  Hilaire  at  Poitiers ;  that  of  the  Magdalen  at 
Vezelay;  that  of  St.  Eu trope  at  Saintes;  that  of  St.  Seurin  at  Bor- 


178  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

deaux;  that  of  St.  Veronica  at  Soulac ;  that  of  St.  Facundus  and 
St.  Primitivus  at  Sahagun ;  that  of  St.  Martin  at  Tours  are  only  a 
few  among  the  more  important  of  an  unending  number  of  relics 
which  lined  the  road  to  Santiago.  Hardly  less  seductive  to  the  medi¬ 
aeval  pilgrims  were  the  associations  of  the  chansons  de  geste.  The 
Church  cleverly  extended  to  these  secular  heroes  the  cloak  of  sanc¬ 
tity.  On  the  road  were  seen  and  visited  the  very  field  of  Roncevaux ; 
Blaye  where  St.  Roland  was  buried ;  Bordeaux  where  the  oliphant 
was  preserved  (St.-Sernin  of  Toulouse  also  claimed  to  have  the  oli¬ 
phant,  but  the  Guide  passes  this  pretention  by  with  scornful  silence) ; 
Belin,  where  were  buried  Oliver  and  other  piers  of  Charlemagne; 
Sahagun,  near  which  the  Christians’  spears  burst  into  foliage. 

Into  the  psychology  of  the  pilgrimage  there  must  also  have  en¬ 
tered  love  of  wandering  for  its  own  sweet  sake.  Ever  since  the  days 
of  Odysseus,  and  doubtless  long  before,  men  have  passionately  de¬ 
sired  to  see  strange  countries.  The  same  restlessness  that  creates  the 
modern  tourist  spurred  on  the  men  of  the  Middle  Ages  to  rove. 
Chaucer’s  pilgrims  to  Canterbury  told  their  tales  to  while  away  the 
time  on  their  journey;  it  is  easy  to  see  that  the  pilgrimage  on  the 
whole  was  a  thoroughly  delightful  experience.  The  pilgrims  of  Saint 
James  similarly  sought  solace  from  monotony  in  the  Chanson  de 
Roland  and  the  Chanson  de  Guillaume;  they,  too,  doubtless  found 
travelling,  for  all  its  discomforts  and  even  perils,  pleasurable.  The 
efforts  of  Cluny  and  of  pious  individuals  had  resulted  in  making  the 
road  relatively  safe  and  comfortable.  Hospices  were  provided  at 
needed  points,^  bridges  built,  the  roads  repaired.^  The  Callistine  co¬ 
dex  lays  great  stress  upon  the  terrible  vengeance  that  Saint  James 
might  be  expected  to  visit  upon  whoever  molested,  or  even  failed  to 
aid,  his  pilgrims.  His  wrath,  it  was  known,  was  especially  liable  to 
fall  upon  unscrupulous  inn-keepers.  No  sin  could  be  more  heinous 
than  to  defraud  pilgrims  of  money  which  otherwise  would  be  given 

^  As  early  as  969  a  donation  was  made  in  pago  Matisconensi  (Macon),  in  Villa  Rufiacensi  to 
Cluny  ut  peregrini  et  non  habentes  inde  sustententur  et  recreentur  (Bruel,  II,  345). 

*  A  merit  of  Santo  Domingo  de  la  Calzada  was,  as  his  name  implies,  that  he  built  and  kept  in 
repair  a  portion  of  the  road  of  St.  James. 


THE  PILGRIMAGE  TO  COMPOSTELA 


179 


to  the  Church.  Fraternities  were  formed  everywhere  to  aid  pilgrims. 
He  who  went  to  Saint  James  was  wrapped  about  by  a  sort  of  sanctity 
that  was  a  powerful  protection  and  a  help  in  case  of  need. 

So  the  journey  was  not  over-full  of  hardships.  Neither  was  it  very 
expensive.  M.  Thorel  has  estimated  that  the  return  trip  from 
Amiens  cost  about  $200  in  modern  money.  This  certainly  seems  rea¬ 
sonable  for  a  journey  that  must  have  lasted  several  months,  since  we 
are  told  that  the  return  trip  from  Toulouse  required  thirty-six  days. 
Travelling  was  assuredly  slower  than  to-day,  but  perhaps  not  dearer 
nor  less  agreeable.  This  explains  the  fact  that  the  pilgrims  were  not 
satisfied  with  their  long  trip  to  Santiago.  They  pushed  on  two  long 
days  further  to  see  where  St.  James  landed  at  Padron,  and  to  gather 
cockle-shells  on  the  shores  of  the  western  ocean.  Indeed,  the  going  to 
Notre-Dame  of  Finisterre,  the  westernmost  land,  was  an  integral 
part  of  the  regular  pilgrimage  route. 

By  no  means  the  least  glamour  of  the  pilgrimage  was  and  is  that 
of  art.  The  four  roads  to  Santiago  lead,  even  to-day,  past  an  incom¬ 
parable  series  of  mediaeval  monuments. 

Leaving  St.-Jacques  of  Paris,  of  which  only  the  tower  remains  to¬ 
day,  passing  under  the  shadow  of  the  cathedral,  near  St.-Julien-le- 
Pauvre  and  St.-Germain-des-Pres  out  the  rue  St.-Jacques  and 
through  the  Porte  St.-Jacques  the  pilgrims  went  to  Longpont,  St.- 
Sulpice-de-Favieres,  Etampes,  Orleans,  Blois,  Amboise,  Tours, 
Cormery,  Beaulieu-les-Loches,  Loches,  Parthenay,  Thouars,  St.- 
Jouin-de-Marne,  Champdeniers,  Poitiers,  Montmorillon,  Moreaux, 
Civray,  Melle,  Aulnay,  Saintes,  Bordeaux,  Dax,  Mimizan,  Bayonne, 
Sauveterre,Roncevaux, Pamplona, Puente  la  Reina,  Estella,Hirache, 
Logrono,  Najera,  Santo  Domingo  de  la  Calzada,  Burgos,  Fromista, 
Villacazar,  Carrion  de  los  Condes,  Sahagun,  San  Miguel  de  Escalada, 
Leon,  Astorga  and  so  to  Santiago ;  returning  they  might  pass  Oviedo, 
Santa  Maria  de  Lena,Arbas,  Armentia, Vitoria, Estibaliz,  Leyre,  San 
Juan  de  la  Pena,  Santa  Cruz  de  la  Serbs,  Jaca,  Oloron-Ste. -Marie, 
Morlaas,  St.-Bertrand-de-Comminges,  Valcabrere,  Lezat,  Toulouse, 
Carcassonne,  Rieux-Minervois,  Narbonne,  Beziers,  St.-Guilhem-le- 


i8o  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

Desert,  Aniane,  Montpellier,  Maguelonne,  St.-Gilles,  Arles,  Nimes, 
Le  Puy,  Brioude,  Lavaudieu,  Issoire,  St.-Saturnin,  Clermont-Fer¬ 
rand;  or  if  the  alternate  routes  were  chosen,  Hagetmau,  Bazas, 
Blazimont,  Perigueux,  Limoges,  St.-Leonard,  Nevers,  Vezelay, 
Castelvieil,  La  Sauve  Majeure;  Moissac,  Cordes,  Conques;  and 
possibly  Cahors,  Rocamadour,  Figeac,  Souillac,  Martel,  Carennac, 
Beaulieu.  Kilometre  for  kilometre  it  would  be,  I  think,  impossible 
to  trace  another  itinerary  in  Europe  passing  as  many  important 
monuments  of  the  early  part  of  the  XII  century.  It  is  clear  that 
there  was  a  distinct  tendency  for  Cluniac  priories,  for  relics,  and 
for  monumental  sculpture  to  gather  along  the  road. 

That  the  road  should  have  been  adorned  with  art,  as  it  was  with 
legends  and  epics,  is  in  no  way  surprising.  The  mere  material  pros¬ 
perity  brought  by  the  streams  of  pilgrims  would  explain  much. 
Moreover,  large  towns  and  arteries  of  communication  naturally 
gravitate  together.  Behind  all  this  there  was  however,  I  suspect,  the 
directing  hand  of  the  monks  of  Cluny.  At  this  period  Cluny  was  the 
champion  of  all  the  arts,  but  especially  of  sculpture.  It  was  through 
Cluny  that  stone  sculpture  was  first  really  popularized  in  the  West; 
and  Cluny  remained  the  chief  foyer  of  the  art  until  the  rising  power 
of  Citeaux  broke  the  prestige  of  the  older  order,  and  soured  its  sweet¬ 
ness  with  the  gloom  of  Puritanism.  After  Saint  Bernard,  art  could 
hardly  flourish  in  any  monastery,  more  than  it  could,  after  Luther, 
in  any  church.  But  in  the  first  third  of  the  XII  century  Cluny,  the 
lover  of  art  and  beauty,  was  still  at  the  zenith  of  her  power ;  and  those 
precious  moments  never  to  return  she  used  to  line  the  road,  from 
Paris  to  Santiago,  with  a  series  of  masterworks.  The  influence  ex¬ 
erted  upon  sculpture  by  these  pilgrimage  churches  was  exceedingly 
great. 

Many  of  the  sculptures  of  northern  Spain  not  upon  the  road  seem 
to  be  derivatives  of  monuments  which  are.  Santa  Marta  de  Terra 
comes  out  of  Santiago  (Ill.  675-691).  Moarves  (Ill.  729)  is  evidently 
copied  from  Carridn  de  los  Condes  (Ill.  722-726).  The  jamb  sculp¬ 
tures  of  San  Martin  at  Segdvia  (Ill.  755-756)  may  have  been  inspired 


THE  PILGRIMAGE  TO  COMPOSTELA 


i8i 


by  Sangiiesa  (Ill.  743-746).  The  large  figures  in  the  cloister  of  San- 
tillana  del  Mar  (Ill.  867-868)  come  out  of  Oviedo  (Ill.  869,  870).  The 
caryatid  figures  under  the  cupola  at  Santiago  (Ill.  694,  695)  1  are 
analogous  to  those  at  Hirache,  Armentia  (Ill.  767),  Ciudad  Rodrigo, 
Toro,  Salamanca  (Ill.  736-739),  Conques  (Ill.  388,  389),  Aix,  Ven- 
asque  and  Carpentras. 

The  history  of  Spanish  Romanesque  sculpture  might  be  graphi¬ 
cally  represented  by  taking  a  pen,  full  of  ink,  and  tracing  with  it  upon 
wet  blotting  paper,  the  road  of  St.  James. 

Nor,  does  it  appear,  was  the  case  in  France  essentially  otherwise. 
Certainly  the  school  of  the  West  had  important  centres  at  Blazimont, 
Parthenay,  Melle,  Aulnay,  Saintes  and  Poitiers,  all  on  the  road.  The 
school  of  Provence  similarly  centres  in  Arles,  St.-Gilles,  Nimes,  St.- 
Guilhem-le-Desert,  all  on  the  road.  That  of  Velay  radiates  from  Le 
Puy,  which  is  on  the  road.  That  of  Auvergne  is  grouped  about 
Issoire  and  Clermont-Ferrand,  both  on  the  road.  By  far  the  most 
important  centres  of  south-western  France  were  Moissac  and  Tou¬ 
louse,  both  on  the  road.  The  Burgundian-Languedocian  manner  was 
originated  at  Cluniac  Moissac  (Ill.  339-342),  on  the  road;  thence  it 
spread  to  Beaulieu  (Ill.  409-420).  Other  centres  were  formed  at 
Cahors  (Ill.  422-429)  and  Conques  (Ill.  386-401),  both  on  the  road. 
From  Conques,  the  art  spread  to  Espalion  (Ill.  402).  The  last  phase 
of  Languedocian  Romanesque  sculpture,  characterized  by  the  ap¬ 
pearance  of  the  influence  of  Chartres,  found  centres  in  the  Cluniac 
priory  of  La  Daurade  at  Toulouse  (Ill.  462-479),  on  the  road,  and  at 
St.-Etienne  (Ill.  434-449)  of  the  same  city,  hence  also  on  the  road, 
and  also  under  strong  Cluniac  influence. 

Lombardy  was  connected  with  the  rest  of  Europe  by  the  pilgrim¬ 
age  routes.  Many  Lombards  made  the  journey  to  Compostela,  as  we 
learn  from  the  book  of  the  miracles  and  other  sources.  Nicolb,  who 

^  The  motive  is  doubtless  of  Byzantine  origin,  since  found  in  Armenia  at  Kumurdo,  a  church 
which  according  to  Strzygowski,  782,  dates  from  the  second  half  of  the  X  century.  In  Byzan¬ 
tine  mosaics  the  evangelists  were  regularly  represented  in  this  position. 

The  existing  sculptures  in  the  pendentives  of  Santiago  seem  related  in  style  to  the  work  of 
Mateo  and  are  perhaps  not  earlier  than  the  second  half  of  the  XII  century,  but  they  must 
replace  earlier  sculptures  of  the  same  subject. 


i82  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

had  certainly  been  in  Spain,  carved  the  figures  of  Roland  and  Oliver 
on  the  jambs  of  the  cathedral  of  Verona.  Moreover,  two  important 
pilgrimage  routes,  those  to  Rome  and  Jerusalem,  crossed  Lombardy, 
passing  through  Susa,  Sagra  S.  Michele,  Vercelli,  Sannazaro  Sesia, 
Pavia,  Piacenza,  Borgo  S.  Donnino,  Parma,  Modena,  Bologna. 

Indeed,  the  roads  to  Rome  and  to  the  Holy  Land  were  connected 
with  that  to  Compostela,  and  were  no  less  important  in  transmitting 
artistic  influences.  A  long  series  of  accounts  written  by  pilgrims  at 
various  periods  of  the  Middle  Ages  has  been  published  by  the  Pales¬ 
tine  Pilgrims’  Text  Society.  Less  condensed  and  vivid  than  the  Guide 
to  Compostela,  this  valuable  series  of  documents  nevertheless 
informs  us  in  detail  of  the  journey  to  the  Holy  Land  in  mediaeval 
times.  The  great  number  of  alternative  routes  is  sharply  brought 
to  our  attention.  We  are  apt  to  forget  that  in  the  XII  century,  as 
now,  there  were  many  different  ways  of  going  from  one  place  to 
another.  Pilgrims  who  had  gone  to  Santiago  by  the  regular  route, 
might  return  by  way  of  Catalonia,  visiting  the  great  shrines  at  Zara¬ 
goza  and  Montserrat,  and  passing,  perhaps,  by  Solsona  or  Ripoll, 
thence  via  Puigcerda  to  Villefranche  with  its  church  of  St. -Jacques 
and  the  pilgrimage  of  Mont  Romeu.  So  pilgrims  to  the  Holy  Land 
went  occasionally,  especially  in  early  times,  over-land  the  entire  dis¬ 
tance  —  this  was  the  route  taken  by  the  Bordeaux  pilgrim  in  333, 
by  St.  Antoninus  c.  570  and  by  Mandeville.  In  the  XII  century, 
however,  the  usual  route  was  by  sea.  The  pilgrim  might  embark  at 
Venice  or  at  Rome,  but  he  was  more  likely  to  sail  from  an  Apulian 
port.  The  one  selected  seems  to  have  depended  upon  circumstances. 
Seawulf  (1102-1103)  writes:  “Some  embark  at  Bari,  some  at  Bar- 
letta,  some  at  Siponto  or  Trani,  and  some  even  at  Otranto.  We, 
however,  went  on  board  ship  at  Monopoli.”  After  having  been  ship¬ 
wrecked,  he  re-embarked  at  Brindisi.  Other  pilgrims  mention  that 
they  took  ship  at  Taranto.  The  great  shrines  at  Monte  Gargano 
and  Bari  were,  however,  regularly  included  in  the  itinerary. 

The  pilgrimages  to  Rome  and  the  Holy  Land  undoubtedly  played 
a  large  part  in  uniting  the  art  of  Apulia  and  Lombardy  with  that  of 


THE  PILGRIMAGE  TO  COMPOSTELA  183 

the  rest  of  Europe.  We  find  the  influence  of  Lombard  architecture 
appearing  in  Normandy,  at  Jumieges,  at  precisely  the  moment  when 
the  Normans  began  to  pass  through  Lombardy  frequently  on  their 
way  to  Apulia.  The  connection  between  the  Bayeux  tapestry,  the 
relief  at  Angouleme  (Ill.  939),  the  Porta  della  Pescheria  at  Modena, 
and  the  Porta  dei  Leoni  at  S.  Niccola  of  Bari  (Ill.  156)  has  doubtless 
the  same  explanation.  The  occupation  of  Apulia  by  the  Normans 
must  have  caused  much  travelling  back  and  forth  from  Normandy 
through  Lombardy  to  x^pulia  even  by  those  who  were  not  pilgrims. 
Journeys  undertaken  for  many  different  reasons  led  travellers 
along  the  same  routes.  Suger,  for  example,  made  three  trips  to 
Italy,  and  went  as  far  south  as  S.  Niccola  of  Bari.  We  are  not  there¬ 
fore  surprised  to  find  him  introducing  at  St.-Denis  numerous  fea¬ 
tures  of  Italian  art  —  mosaics,  Lombard  anthemia,  bronze  doors, 
jamb  sculptures.  Artists  themselves  often  travelled.  We  have  al¬ 
ready  found  many  instances,  and  shall  find  even  more  striking  ones 
in  subsequent  chapters.  The  pilgrim  who  signed  his  initials  and 
added  the  word  peregrini  to  the  marble  epitaph  of  Ponce  de  Brou  at 
Narbonne  ^  was  only  one  of  many  who  combined  the  business  of  art 
with  the  spiritual  benefits  of  a  pilgrimage.  It  was  another,  I  sus¬ 
pect,  who  {pelegrinus^  not  Pellegrinus)  executed  in  1273  the  windows 
for  Charles  d’Anjou  in  the  castle  of  Pontano  at  Foggia.^ 

The  roads  crossing  Lombardy  without  question  aided  in  the 
transmission  of  artistic  ideas  to  and  from  that  province.  Lombard 
sculpture  was  formed  at  Modena,  which  lies  on  the  road. 

From  Modena  it  spread  to  Nonantola,  to  Cremona,  to  the  Clu- 
niac  S.  Benedetto  Po.  The  second  phase  of  Lombard  sculpture  was 
formed  by  Nicolb  at  Sagra  S.  Michele  and  Piacenza,  both  on  the 
road.  From  there  it  spread  to  Ferrara  and  Verona.  From  Ferrara 
the  style  was  carried  to  France,  to  Chamalieres  (Ill.  1154-1156)  in 
the  Cevennes.  At  Parma,  on  the  road,  was  formed  the  art  of  Bene¬ 
detto,  which  spread  to  Milan,  to  Venice,  throughout  Lombardy. 

Corneto,  on  the  road  to  Rome,  and  the  Apulian  cities  on  the  road 

'  de  Mely,  6i.  2  Lenormant,  I,  40. 


1 84  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

to  the  Holy  Land,  both  developed  during  the  XII  century  an  art  of 
the  pilgrimage  type.  In  both  the  architectural  forms  in  the  early  part 
of  the  century  are  Lombard ;  in  both  these  are  later  supplanted  by 
the  early  Gothic  forms  of  northern  France.  The  same  succession  of 
Lombard  and  French  influences  is  notable  in  the  sculpture  of  Apulia. 
In  other  provinces  of  Italy  the  influences  of  the  pilgrimages  can  be 
traced.  The  sculptures  of  the  cathedral  of  Genoa  (Ill.  254-258)  are 
derived  from  Chartres;  those  of  the  cathedral  of  Lucca  (Ill.  247) 
from  Burgundy.  I  suspect  that  Giovanni  Pisano  may  have  absorbed 
the  French  influences  which  form  so  important  an  element  in  his 
style  from  pilgrims  and  travellers  passing  through  Pisa  on  their  way 
to  Rome. 

The  discoveries  of  Strzygowski  leave  no  doubt  as  to  the  reality  of 
Byzantine  influence  over  the  art  of  the  Occident.  A  venerable  tra¬ 
dition  had,  indeed,  always  asserted  the  fact,  and  Syrian  monuments 
had  already  given  good  reason  to  suspect  that  the  Orient  counted 
for  more  in  Western  productions  than  the  wildest  dreamer  could 
have  imagined.  Now  that  Armenian  architecture  has  been  opened 
up  to  us,  we  are  face  to  face  with  the  fact  that  Western  art  was 
largely  inspired  by  the  East.  Thence  were  derived  many  motives 
we  have  considered  characteristic  of  Western  Romanesque  —  cubic 
capitals,  triangular  arches,  arched  corbel-tables  ( ?),  blind  arches, 
plans  of  the  Germigny-les-Pres  type,  arched  squinches,  apses  polyg¬ 
onal  externally  semicircular  internally,  barrel-vaulted  naves  with 
transverse  arches,  compound  piers,  Le  Puy  vaults,  pointed  arches, 
horse-shoe  arches,  alternation  of  supports,  griffes,  sculptured  tym¬ 
pana,  columns  supported  on  lions  ( ?),  figure  sculpture,  zig-zag  dentil 
string-courses,  transverse  arches,  squinch  sculptures.  From  the 
East  came  the  Auvergnat  vaulted  basilicas,  with  central  cupola 
buttressed  by  vaults  raised  over  the  side  aisles.  Thence  also  were 
derived  the  mosaic  pavements  characteristic  of  Romanesque 
churches  in  Italy  and  France- — such  pavements  were  common  in 
Byzantine  churches  of  the  IV-VI  centuries  in  the  East.^  To  the 

1  Diehl,  21 1. 


THE  PILGRIMAGE  TO  COMPOSTELA 


185 

same  source  was  due  sculpture  in  stone  which  is  found  in  Armenia 
in  the  church  of  Mzchet,  dating  apparently  from  the  VIII  century,^ 
at  Kars  (928-951)  ^  and  at  Achthamar  (921.) 

Not  only  separate  motives,  but  entire  buildings  appear  to  have 
been  transported,  as  it  were  bodily,  either  from  Armenia  or  from  the 
source  of  Armenian  architecture.  Among  these  is  the  cathedral  of 
Pisa,  a  city  on  the  road  to  Rome.  The  cathedral  of  Pisa  seems  to 
have  inspired  in  turn  an  entire  school  of  Romanesque  architecture  in 
Tuscany;  and  it  was  also  copied  in  the  cathedral  of  Troia  in  Apulia, 
which  in  turn  was  reproduced  at  Foggia  and  Siponto. 

An  undoubted  result  of  the  pilgrimages  was  to  diffuse  through 
the  West  copies  of  the  church  of  the  Holy  Sepulchre  at  Jerusalem. 
The  characteristic  features  of  this  structure  were ;  first,  that  it  was 
of  central  or  circular  type;  and  second, that  it  consisted  of  a  build¬ 
ing  within  a  building,  since  the  rotunda  had  been  constructed  about 
the  tomb  itself.  Avowed  or  evident  reproductions  are  numerous 
in  the  West,  and  exist,  or  existed  at  St.-Leonard,  Montmorillon, 
Parthenay,  Ste.-Croix  of  Quimperle,  St.-Bonnet-la-Riviere,  Laon, 
Neuvy-St.-Sepulcre,  Eunate,  El  Sepulcro  of  Torres,  Santa  Cruz  of 
Segovia,  Cambridge,  the  Temple  Church  at  London,  S.  Sepolcro  of 
Barletta,  S.  Stefano  of  Bologna.  M.  Brehier  has  suggested  that  the 
old  rotunda  of  St.-Benigne  of  Dijon  should  be  added  to  the  list,  and 
the  strange  church  of  Charroux  should  almost  certainly  be  grouped 
under  this  head. 

Western  iconography,  until  1140  almost  exclusively,  and  always 
in  great  part,  was  under  the  influence  of  Byzantine  models.  The 
pilgrimages  may  have  played  no  small  part  in  carrying  such  con¬ 
ceptions  from  the  East,  and  in  renewing  constantly  contact  with 
the  fountain-heads. 

S.  Marco  of  Venice,  and  the  domed  churches  of  the  west  of  France, 
are  certainly  derived  from  Eastern  models.  This  type  of  architecture 
may  well  have  been  brought  to  the  West  bymeans  of  the  pilgrimages. 
The  church  of  Canosa  in  Apulia  was  vaulted  with  domes  on  penden- 

^  Strzygowski,  81.  ^  Ibid.,  84. 


1 86  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

tives  of  the  same  diameter  in  iioi ;  this  church  and  S.  Marco  and 
St.-Front  of  Perigueux  were  all  important  pilgrimage  centres. 

Other  types  of  vault  may  well  have  come  from  the  East.  The 
barrel-vaulted  basilicas  of  the  Asturias  recall  strangely  those  of  Asia 
Minor.  The  singular  ribbed  cupola  of  Casale  Monferrato  is  precisely 
like  the  similar  vaults  at  Cordoba  and  San  Baudelio  in  Spain  and 
Aklepat  in  Armenia. 

Along  the  road  of  St.  James  followed  by  the  Lombard  pilgrims,  the 
forms  of  Lombard  art  begin  to  appear,  and  spread  thence  to  the 
neighbouring  districts.  The  apse  of  St.-Guilhem-le-Desert,  on  the 
road,  is  completely  Lombard.  The  alternate  system,  introduced  at 
St.-Nazaire  of  Carcassonne,  on  the  road,  spread  thence  to  Bozouls. 
The  rib  vault  is  introduced  at  Frejus,  on  the  road  (for  pilgrims  doubt¬ 
less  came  by  the  shore  as  well  as  by  the  Mt.-Cenis),  at  St.-Victor  of 
Marseille,  on  the  road,  at  Maguelonne,  on  the  road,  at  St.-Etienne 
of  Toulouse,  on  the  road,  at  Moissac,  on  the  road,  at  St.-Hilaire  of 
Poitiers,  on  the  road.^  The  Cistercian  rib  vaults  of  Lombardy  ^  pene¬ 
trated  into  the  porches  of  St.-Guilhem-le-Desert  on  the  road  and 
St.-Martin-de-Londres.  These  Lombard  influences  were  doubtless 
brought  not  only  by  pilgrims.  The  architecture  of  Catalonia,  French 
as  well  as  Spanish,  was  under  strong  Lombard  influence.  Lombard 
masters  were  probably  often  employed  —  at  least  it  is  certain  that 
this  was  the  case  at  Seu  d’Urgell.  These  masters  journeyed  over  the 
same  road  taken  by  the  pilgrims. 

Lombard  rib  vaults  were  introduced  into  Central  Italy  at  Corneto 
and  at  Montefiascone  on  the  road.  Thence  the  idea  spread  to  S. 
Robano,  to  Sovana,  perhaps  even  to  Aversa,  Teramo  and  S.  Maria  di 
Ronzano.  In  Apulia  Lombard  rib  vaults  were  introduced  at  S.  Bene¬ 
detto  of  Brindisi,  on  the  road. 

The  type  of  Romanesque  cloister,  consisting  of  twin  columns  sup¬ 
porting  round  arches  with  piers  at  the  angles,  is  closely  associated 

^  The  rib  vault  of  Ste. -Croix  of  Quimperle,  however,  appears  to  be  earlier  than  any  of  the 
examples  on  the  road.  The  construction  early  spread  to  the  Ile-de-France  and  to  England. 

^  Or  did  these  profiled  ribs  come  from  the  North St.-Jean  of  Valence  gives  some  reason  to 
think  such  may  have  been  the  case. 


THE  PILGRIMAGE  TO  COMPOSTELA  187 

with  the  pilgrimage  road.  We  find  it  at  Santo  Domingo  de  Silos  in 
the  eighth  decade  of  the  XI  century  (Ill.  666).  Such  cloisters  be¬ 
came  characteristic  of  the  Romanesque  architecture  of  Spain  and 
Catalonia;  they  are  found  at  the  cathedral  and  Sant  Pere  de  Galli- 
gans  of  Gerona,  Estany,  Perelada,  Pages,  Sant  Pere  de  Roda,  Sant 
Pere  de  les  Puelles  (destroyed),  Ripoll,  Elne,  San  Cugat  del  Valles, 
San  Pedro  of  Huesca,  San  Pedro  of  Estella,  Santillana  del  Mar.  In 
France  the  type  was  introduced  from  Spain,  at  Moissac,  on  the  road. 
Later  it  appears  at  St.-Trophime  of  Arles,  on  the  road,  at  Mont- 
majour,  at  St.-Bertrand-de-Comminges,  on  the  road,  at  Notre- 
Dames-des-Doms  of  Avignon  (now  destroyed),  and  at  Aix-en-Pro¬ 
vence.  It  found  its  way,  too,  into  Lombardy;  to  S.  Orso’of  Aosta, 
S.  Stefano  of  Bologna,  the  cathedral  and  S.  Zeno  of  Verona;  thence 
to  Ss.  Quattro  Coronati  (c.  1113)  and  other  cloisters  of  Rome  and 
Sicily.  It  was  doubtless  one  of  the  many  artistic  ideas  which  the 
Lombard  pilgrims  brought  back  from  their  journey  to  Compostela. 

The  motive  of  crossed  legs  in  sculpture,  wherever  it  originated, 
found  itself  established  at  an  early  period  in  the  Spanish-Aquitanian 
school.  At  Compostela  and  Toulouse  it  was  known  from  at  least  the 
second  decade  of  the  XII  century.  Thence  it  spread  through  the  pil¬ 
grimages  over  Europe  —  to  Ferrara  in  Lombardy,  to  Bamberg  in 
Germany,  to  St.-Gilles  in  Provence,  to  St.-Denis  and  Senlis  in  north¬ 
ern  France. 

Architectural  motives  travelled  as  easily  along  the  pilgrimage 
routes.  Miss  King  has  shown  that  the  west  front  of  Le  Puy,  on  the 
road,  is  derived  from  Santiago,  and  Lamperez  that  the  cusping  of 
St.-Michel-de-l’Aiguille  is  inspired  by  the  same  source. 

It  has  long  been  known  that  the  horsemen  sculptured  on  the  fa¬ 
cades  of  several  churches  in  the  west  of  France  represent  Constan¬ 
tine.  It  has  been  conjectured  that  pilgrims  to  Rome  had  been  im¬ 
pressed  by  the  statue  of  Marcus  Aurelius,  now  on  the  Capitoline, 
but  then  near  the  Lateran,  and  which  had  mistakenly  been  believed 
to  represent  Constantine.  Upon  returning  home,  it  is  supposed,  they 
caused  the  statue  to  be  copied. 


1 88  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

The  fact,  however,  I  confess,  seems  to  me  far  from  certain.  Con¬ 
stantine  is  a  subject  well  known  to  Byzantine  iconography.  Strzy- 
gowski  ^  has  suggested  that  the  motive  of  the  victorious  rider,  trans¬ 
fixing  with  his  spear  his  fallen  enemy  is  of  ancient  Egyptian  origin, 
since  it  is  found  in  a  relief  representing  Horus,  now  in  the  Louvre. 
In  any  event,  the  motive  was  very  frequent  in  the  Christian  art  of 
the  Copts;  almost  any  saint  ^  might  be  represented  in  this  form, 
among  others,  Constantine.®  Now  there  are  several  clear  indications 
that  the  Constantines  of  western  France  are  derived  from  Eastern 
tradition,  not  from  the  Marcus  Aurelius  of  Rome. 

Constantine  was  represented  in  a  mosaic  of  the  church  of  the  Holy 
Sepulchre  at  Jerusalem.'^  This  monument  has  unhappily  perished, 
and  we  know  it  only  through  over-brief  descriptions.  One  detail  is, 
however,  significant.  Opposite  the  emperor  was  represented  the 
female  figure  of  the  empress  Helena.  This  suggests  an  explanation 
of  the  female  figure  which  appears  beside  the  Constantines  at  Cha- 

^  Hell,  und  Kopt.  Kunst,  26. 

^  Clermont-Ganneau,  398,  mentions  an  instance  in  which  Christ  is  represented  as  a  horse¬ 
man  ;  he  also  speaks  of  “deux  intailles  d’hematite  a  la  Bibliotheque  Nationale,  ou  I’on  voit  un 
cavalier  perfant  de  sa  lance  un  ennemi  a  terre,  avec  le  nom  de  Salomon.”  Every  one  is  familiar 
with  representations  of  St.  George  and  St.  Martin  as  horsemen.  According  to  Strzygowski, 
Kopt.  Reit.,  51,  there  are  at  the  monastery  of  St.  Paul  at  Mar  frescos  of  1713  representing  six 
cavaliers,  all  different  saints  and  labelled.  In  the  south  monastery  of  St.  Anthony  at  Gallale 
are  ten  or  twelve  riders  (52),  and  many  single  representations  occur  elsewhere  (53). 

^  Grueneissen,  63.  A  partir  de  I’epoque  imperiale,  les  images  des  vainqueurs  terrassant 
I’ennemi  sont  multiples :  on  les  voit  sur  les  bas-reliefs,  sur  les  medailles  et  ailleurs.  .  .  .  Le  type 
de  cavalier  vainqueur  foulant  aux  pieds  I’ennemi  desarme  6tait  tres  repandu  dans  I’art  alexan- 
drin  populaire.  De  petites  figurines  en  argile,  creees  pour  le  grand  marche,  prouvent  avec 
Evidence,  que  la  formule  simplificatrice  n’est  point  une  invention  copte.  L’image  de  Con¬ 
stantin  est  la  premiere  dans  la  longue  serie  des  saints  guerriers  intrepides,  et  celle  de  saint 
George  ne  sera  pas,  certainement,  en  Egypte,  la  plus  frequente.  Dans  le  nombre  des  cavaliers 
qui  ornent  les  murs  de  Baouit,  on  trouve  les  noms  de  St.  Victor,  de  Orion,  Bonakh  et  Askla,de 
Sisinnios.  Dans  la  chapelle  XXVI  sont  representes  quatre  cavaliers  affrontes  dont  un  seul 
conserve  la  16gende  fragmentaire;  peut-etre  Jean  le  martyre.  Sur  une  ampoule  en  plomb,  on 
trouve  un  cavalier  avec  le  nom  de  S.  Theodore.  Enfin,  il  existe  beaucoup  d’autres  cavaliers, 
surtout  dans  I’art  textile,  mais  ils  ne  sont  pas  encore  identifies.  Strzygowski  {Aachen,  48)  has 
identified  the  Barberini  ivory  of  the  Louvre  as  a  Constantine,  and  believes  that  it  was  exe¬ 
cuted  at  Alexandria  in  the  IV  century.  For  the  origin  of  the  iconographical  tradition  of  repre¬ 
senting  Constantine  as  a  horseman,  see  Clermont-Ganneau,  398:  “L’empereur  (Constantin) 
s’6tait  fait  repr^senter  en  personne  dans  le  role  d’adversaire  du  dragon.  Ce  fait  enregistre  par 
Eusebe,  confirm 6  par  la  numismatique,  est  egalement  atteste  par  les  historiens  orientaux  qui 
mentionnent,  parmi  les  statues  d’airain  de  Constantinople,  un  cavalier  arm6  d’une  lance  et 
pergant  un  serpent.” 

*  Jeffery,  36. 


THE  PILGRIMAGE  TO  COMPOSTELA 


189 

teauneuf-sur-Charente  (Ill,  1008),  Angouleme  and  St.-Jouin-de- 
Marne  (Ill.  947).  These,  I  suspect,  represent  not  the  Church,  as 
M.  Male  has  supposed,  but  Helena.  The  presence  of  these  female 
figures  in  several  of  the  French  monuments,  inexplicable  on  the 
theory  that  the  theme  is  derived  from  the  Roman  Marcus  Aurelius, 
is  easily  comprehensible  in  the  light  of  Byzantine  tradition.^ 

The  prostrate  figure  at  the  feet  of  the  horse,  characteristic  of  the 
French  sculptures,  might  well  be  derived  from  the  East.  Such  a 
figure  occurs  under  the  feet  of  one  of  the  four  horsemen  represented 
on  a  Byzantine  ivory  box  of  the  X  century  in  the  museum  at  Arezzo. 
One,  too,  is  found  in  the  Barberini  ivory  of  the  Louvre,  which  is  an 
Alexandrine  work  of  the  IV  century.  The  same  motive  recurs  in  a 
Coptic  manuscript  of  the  X  or  XI  century  and  in  a  miniature  of  the 
Chludoff  psalter,  a  palimpset  erased  in  the  XII  century,  but  of  which 
the  illustrations  belong  to  an  earlier  period.^  The  fifty-ninth  psalm 
appears,  in  fact,  to  have  been  interpreted  as  symbolical  of  Constan¬ 
tine.  We  find  the  prostrate  figure  at  the  feet  of  the  horseman  also  in 
the  XIII  century  wooden  doors  of  Kasr-es-Scham’a  at  Old  Cairo.^ 
There  is  nothing  in  this  motive  therefore  which  might  not  have  found 
its  way  into  French  sculpture  from  Oriental  sources.^ 

In  western  France,  Constantine  on  horseback  is  regularly  bal¬ 
anced  by  Samson  wrestling  with  the  lion.  The  Hebrew  hero  is 
astride  the  back  of  the  monster,  and  breaks  his  jaws  with  his  hands. 
Now  this  peculiar  iconography  seems  to  be  taken  over  from  reliefs 
representing  Mithra  and  the  bulH  which  were  common  in  Egypt  as 
well  as  elsewhere.  In  these  Mithra  is  seen  on  the  back  of  the  ani- 

^  Helena  is  often  represented  with  Constantine  in  Byzantine  iconography,  as  e.g.,  in  an 
ivory  triptych  of  the  X  century  in  the  Bibliotheque  Nationale,  illustrated  by  Schlumberger, 
Ep.  Byz.,  I,  17;  in  an  ivory  triptych  of  the  XI  century  in  the  Berlin  museum,  illustrated  Hid., 
II,  76;  in  a  reliquary  of  the  XI— XII  centuries  at  Nonantola,  illustrated  Hid.,  II,  8i ;  in  a  reli¬ 
quary  of  Cologne,  illustrated  H>id.,  II,  177;  in  a  steatite  carving  of  the  XI-XII  centuries  in  the 
cathedral  of  Lentini,  illustrated  Hid.,  Ill,  804. 

*  Illustrated  by  Tikkanen,  Taf.  I,  Fig.  i.  Compare  also  Lefebvre  des  Noettes,  Fig.  6. 

®  Strzygowski,  Kopt.  Reit.,  55. 

^  The  horseman  at  S.  Maria  Antiqua,  Rome,  seems  to  have  had  two  prostrate  figures  be¬ 
neath  his  horse’s  hoofs  (Griineisen,  PI.  IC.  XVI). 

5  Two  of  these  are  illustrated  by  Strzygowski,  Cairo  Cat.,  8-10.  Many  others  illustrated  by 
Frothingham,  passim. 


190  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

mal,  grasping  its  head  in  precisely  the  same  manner.  Both  Constan¬ 
tine  and  Samson  appear  therefore  to  be  motives  of  Egyptian  origin. 

Several  of  the  earlier  Constantines  in  the  West  —  those  of  St.- 
Jouin-de-Marne  (Ill.  947)  and  Angouleme  —  are  low  reliefs,  and  in 
the  former  case  of  very  small  dimensions.  The  early  cavalier  of 
Parthenay-le-Vieux  (Ill.  924),  it  is  true,  is  of  the  established  type; 
but  in  general  there  seems  to  be  a  distinct  evolution  towards  larger 
and  higher  reliefs,  a  fact  which  makes  it  seem  probable  that  the  west¬ 
ern  cavaliers  are  derived  from  miniatures  rather  than  from  the  Ro¬ 
man  statue  in  the  round. 

It  is  certain  that  the  silver  Constantine  presented  by  Charles, 
Duke  of  Berry,  in  1414,  had  a  Greek  inscription.^  Therefore  at  least 
one  image  of  Constantine  had  been  imported  into  France  from  the 
East.  Nor  is  there  reason  to  suppose  that  it  was  the  only  one. 

A  marked  peculiarity  of  the  Constantines  in  the  West  is  the  coat 
fluttering  behind.  This  is  excellently  preserved,  for  example,  at 
Surgeres  (Ill.  1092,  1093)  and  Parthenay-le-Vieux  (Ill.  924).  Now 
this  motive  is  characteristic  of  Byzantine  art,^  but  is  not  found  in  the 
Marcus  Aurelius.  This  fact  is  conclusive. 

Indeed,  a  well-known  anecdote  suggests  that  the  Marcus  Aurelius, 

^  Strzygowski,  Hell,  und  Kopt.  Kunst,  27-28. 

^  The  coat  flutters  behind  Constantine  on  horse-back  in  a  Byzantine  miniature  of  the  X  cen¬ 
tury  in  the  Bibliotheque  Nationale,  illustrated  by  Schlumberger,  I,  605.  It  also  flutters  behind 
the  equestrian  St.  Sisinnios  of  Bawit  illustrated  by  Gruneisen,Pl.  XXXV.  St.  Minas  is  depicted 
as  a  horseman  with  coat  fluttering  behind,  and  a  naked  bather  at  the  feet  of  his  horse  in  a 
Nubian  miniature  of  the  IX  century,  illustrated  by  Kaufmann,  33.  Horsemen  in  Byzantine  art 
are,  in  fact,  regularly  represented  with  the  coat  fluttering  behind  —  e.g..,  on  an  ivory  box  of  the 
XI  century  at  Troyes,  illustrated  by  Diehl,  615 ;  in  an  ivory  casket  of  the  X  century  at  Liver¬ 
pool,  illustrated  by  Graeven,  I,  13;  in  a  miniature  illustrated  by  Schlumberger,  Ep.  Byz.,  I, 
740;  in  an  ivory  of  the  XI  or  XII  century  in  the  museum  of  Angers,  illustrated  iHd.,  II,  132; 
in  a  miniature  of  the  X-XI  centuries  in  the  library  of  St.  Mark’s  at  Venice ;  illustrated  iHd.,  II, 
473 ;  in  an  ivory  box  of  the  X  or  XI  century  in  the  Bargello  at  Florence,  illustrated  iHd.,  Ill, 
17;  in  miniatures  of  the  XI  century  at  Jerusalem,  illustrated  ii>id.,  Ill,  32, 37 ;  in  a  casket  of  the 
XI  century  at  Bologna,  illustrated  by  Graeven,  II,  4;  in  a  miniature  of  the  Utrecht  Psalter 
(f.  7  b) ;  in  one  of  the  four  horsemen  of  the  Apocalypse  of  St.-Sever  (1028-1072),  illustrated  by 
HaselofF  in  Michel,  II,  i,  752;  in  the  rider  of  the  pulpit  at  Aachen,  an  ivory  plaque  of  ancient 
Alexandrian  origin  inserted  in  the  Romanesque  work  of  1002-1024;  in  the  rider  of  the  tym¬ 
panum  at  Daschlut,  illustrated  by  Strzygowski,  Hell,  und  Kopt.  Kunst,  21 ;  in  a  miniature  of 
the  Greek  manuscript,  Vatican  1156,  illustrated  by  Millet,  Fig.  95;  in  a  Tetrevangile  of  the 
Bibliotheque  Nationale,  Paris,  74,  illustrated  ibid.,  Fig.  100;  in  a  fresco  of  Kalinic,  illustrated 
ibid..  Fig.  154;  in  a  Macedonian  relief  of  the  Louvre,  illustrated  by  Lefebvre  des  Noette.®, 
Fig.  21. 


THE  PILGRIMAGE  TO  COMPOSTELA 


191 

far  from  inspiring  the  French  statues,  was  dubbed  a  Constantine 
from  its  resemblance  to  the  traditional  representations  of  that  saint. 
It  is  said  that  a  French  noble  when  visiting  Rome  was  so  shocked  to 
find  the  statue  deprived  of  the  cloak  usual  in  his  country,  that  he 
presented  one.  It  is  certain  that  in  the  XII  century  the  significance 
of  the  Marcus  Aurelius  was  disputed.  In  the  Descriptio  Plenaria  ^ 
we  read :  Later ani  est  quidam  caballus  aereus  qui  dicitur  Constantini^ 
sed  non  ita  est.  Another  pagan  statue  near  by  was  called  Samson, 
probably  because  Samson  commonly  balanced  Constantine  on  the 
facades  of  Pictave  churches. ^ 

Not  all  the  cavaliers  of  western  France  are  Constantines.  Very 
few  of  them  are  actually  named ;  because  it  is  known  that  equestrian 
statues  of  Constantine  existed,  it  has  been  assumed  that  all  eques¬ 
trian  statues  represent  Constantine.  Such,  however.  Is  not  the  case. 
At  Surgeres  (Ill.  1092,  1093)  there  are  two  horsemen,  only  one  of 
whom  can  be  Constantine.  The  second  figure  is  inexplicable  on  the 
theory  that  these  cavaliers  are  derived  from  the  Roman  Marcus 
Aurelius.  In  the  East,  however,  we  have  seen  that  many  different 
saints,  of  whom  Constantine  was  only  one,  were  represented  as 
horsemen.®  In  the  frescos  of  St.-Jean  of  Poitiers,  in  addition  to  the 
Constantine,  three  other  horsemen  appear.  This  iconographical 
scheme  has  no  analogy  with  the  Marcus  Aurelius ;  on  the  other  hand, 
it  is  entirely  parallel  to  the  chapel  at  Bawit,  also  adorned  with  four 
cavaliers  in  fresco  ^  and  to  the  southern  monastery  of  St.  Anthony  at 
Gallale,  where  the  same  peculiar  iconographic  composition  is  re¬ 
peated.®  It  therefore  seems  certain  that  the  French  cavaliers  are  de¬ 
rived  not  from  Rome,  but  from  the  East. 

At  Bamberg,  where  the  influence  of  the  East  as  well  as  of  France  is 
strong,  is  a  rider  whom  there  is  no  especial  reason  for  believing  a 
representation  of  Constantine. 

^  Ed.  Urlichs,  98.  ^  Ibid.,  136. 

^  At  S.  Zeno  of  Verona,  Theodoric  appears  as  a  horseman,  as  he  did  also  in  the  pediment  of 
his  palace  at  Ravenna. 

^  Gruneisen. 

®  These  frescos  are  of  1508-1540.  See  Strzygowski,  Kopt.  Reit.,  55. 


192  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

Two  reliefs  in  Spain,  at  Santa  Maria  of  Carrion  de  los  Condes  (Ill. 
774)  and  at  Armentia  (Ill.  763)  show  every  characteristic  of  the 
French  Constantines.  But  here  again  the  significance  is  not  certain. 
At  a  later  period  St.  James  in  Spain  often  appears  in  the  form  of  a 
victorious  horseman,^  and  the  conquered  province  at  his  feet  be¬ 
comes  a  Moor.  The  researches  of  Miss  King  have  proved  that  the 
conception  of  St.  James  as  a  horseman  is  indeed  at  least  as  old  as  the 
end  of  the  XI  century;  it  is  he  who  appears  in  the  psychostasy  at 
Pontida.2 

What  part,  if  any,  the  pilgrimages  played  in  diffusing  the  motive 
of  the  rider  through  western  Europe  remains  then  problematical. 

In  other  features  of  iconography,  however,  the  influence  of  the 
pilgrimages  is  unmistakable.  It  is  evident  that  the  popularity  of  St. 
James  reflected  glory  on  his  colleagues.  Through  the  pilgrimage  of 
Santiago,  the  entire  group  of  the  apostles  came  to  the  foreground 
with  a  conspicuousness  that  they  had  never  before  enjoyed.  Their 
images  commenced  first  to  be  represented  in  the  pilgrimage  churches. 
An  early  sculptured  cycle  of  the  apostles  is  found  in  the  cloister  of 
Moissac  (Ill.  262-273).  Soon  after,  the  subject  was  taken  up  at 
Santiago,  and  many  times  repeated ;  then  it  occurs  in  the  cloister  of 
St.-Etienne  of  Toulouse,  which  adjoined  the  pilgrims’  hospital ;  then 
at  Oviedo,  then  in  the  Cluniac  Daurade  of  Toulouse,  then  in  Mateo’s 
Pdrtico  de  la  Gloria.  From  the  pilgrimage  churches  it  spread  to 
northern  France,  to  Chartres,  to  Amiens  and  to  Reims.  Even  as  late 
as  1324  the  cycle  of  the  apostles  was  repeated  in  the  pilgrimage 
chapel  at  Paris.  Five  of  these  statues,  the  work  of  Robert  de  Launoy, 
have  been  excavated  and  are  in  the  Museum  of  Cluny.  Germany 
also  brought  back  from  Spain  the  cycle  of  the  apostles,  and  adopted 
it  with  enthusiasm.  Certain  of  the  apostles  of  the  Liebfrauenkirche 
of  Halberstadt  have  their  legs  crossed,  probably  an  indication  that 

^  He  is  already  so  represented  at  Betanzos  (Ill.  895).  The  female  figure  here  is,  I  suppose,  a 
donor. 

^  I  illustrated  this  relief,  of  which  I  missed  the  iconographic  significance,  in  my  Lombard 
Architecture,  IV,  Plate  1 89,  Fig.  2.  Santiago  is  conceived  of  as  a  cavalier  in  the  XIX  miracle 
of  the  Callistine  codex,  ed.  Lopez-Aydillo,  45.  He  also  appears  as  such  in  the  codex  known  as 
Tumbo  A  of  the  cathedral  archives  at  Santiago,  Mas  phot.,  C  29435. 


THE  PILGRIMAGE  TO  COMPOSTELA 


193 

they  are  derived  from  the  South-west.  The  apostles  of  Bamberg 
evidently  owe  much  to  Toulouse  and  Santiago. 

The  basilica  at  Compostela  was  begun  in  1078  ;  the  choir  was  con¬ 
secrated  in  1102;  and  in  1124  the  building  was  finished.  This  edifice 
marks  a  notable  advance  in  architectural  art.  It  has  been  much  dis¬ 
cussed  whether  the  church  should  be  classed  as  French  or  Spanish. 

In  point  of  fact,  at  Santiago,  as  in  other  important  mediaeval 
buildings,  the  best  workmen  were  summoned  from  wherever  they 
could  be  found,  and  artistic  ideas  were  collected  wherever  suitable 
ones  could  be  met  with.  From  these  mixed  elements  was  formed  an 
indigenous  atelier.  Precisely  the  same  process  took  place  when  the 
basilica  of  St.-Denis  and  the  cathedral  of  Canterbury  were  con¬ 
structed,  and  was  the  natural  proceeding  when  there  must  be  built  a 
church  so  great  as  to  be  beyond  the  ordinary  resources  of  the  country. 

It  may  well  be  that  the  master-builders  of  Santiago,  Bernard  and 
Robert,  were  Frenchmen.  It  is  certain  that  closer  precedents  for  the 
style  of  the  building  are  to  be  found  in  France  than  in  Spain.  The 
ambulatory,  the  most  conspicuous  feature  of  the  plan,  is  surely  not 
of  Spanish  origin.  The  motive  appeared  in  Lombardy  toward  the 
end  of  the  X  century  —  at  S.  Stefano  of  Verona,  c.  990  and  in  the 
cathedral  of  Ivrea  c.  1000  —  and  also,  it  seems,  about  the  same  time 
in  France.  The  earliest  extant  example  north  of  the  Alps  is  at  Tour- 
nus.^  It  was  certainly  from  France  and  more  precisely  from  northern 

^  M.  Brehier  believes  that  the  motive  of  the  ambulatory  was  originated  in  the  cathedral  of 
Clermont  consecrated  in  946,  and  was  copied  thence  at  St.-Martin  of  Tours,  Ste.-Croix  of 
Orleans  (989),  Notre-Dame-de-la-Couture  of  Le  Mans  {c.  997)  and  the  cathedral  of  Le  Mans 
(951-970).  I  confess,  however,  to  distrust  of  deductive  reasoning  based  solely  upon  excavated 
foundations.  Nothing  is  easier  to  misunderstand.  The  dates  can  not  be  controlled  by  study 
of  the  style.  Especially  hazardous  in  my  opinion  are  the  conclusions  which  have  been  risked 
upon  St.-Martin  of  Tours.  If  we  believe  Comte  de  Lasteyrie  and  M.  Male  the  basilica  erected 
there  in  994  was  the  prototype  of  the  entire  Santiagoan  family  of  churches.  This  theory  is 
based  upon  the  admittedly  inaccurate  reports  of  excavations  conducted  in  an  entirely  unscien¬ 
tific  manner.  Such  evidence  hardly  justifies  the  assumption  that  a  church  of  this  type  existed 
at  Tours  a  century  earlier  than  elsewhere;  especially  since  we  have  the  explicit  statement  of 
the  contemporary  Pilgrim  s  Guide  that  the  church  of  St.-Martin  was  built  in  imitation  of  that 
of  Compostela;  super  quern  (the  tomb  of  St.  Martin)  ingens  basilica  veneranda  sub  eius  honore, 
ad  similitudinem  scilicet  beati  Jacobi,  miro  opere fabricatur.  The  Santiagoan  church  was  doubt¬ 
less  erected  after  the  fire  of  1123.  It  is  less  improbable  that  the  church  of  St.-Martial  of 
Limoges,  begun  in  1063  and  consecrated  in  1095,  was  of  the  Santiagoan  type  shown  in  draw¬ 
ings  of  the  edifice  destroyed  in  the  XVIII  century  that  have  come  down  to  us.  The  debris 


194  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

Auvergne  that  the  ambulatory,  and  other  features  of  design  also, 
were  brought  to  Compostela.  The  significant  fact,  however,  is  that 
out  of  these  ancient  elements  was  produced  a  new  whole ;  that  the 
atelier  of  Santiago  became,  for  a  century,  one  of  the  most  advanced 
and  productive  centres  of  artistic  creation  in  Europe ;  and  that  it 
exerted  a  dominating  influence  upon  the  development  of  architecture 
and  sculpture  in  the  XII  century. 

The  type  of  architecture  originated  at  Santiago  became  the  stand¬ 
ard  for  a  great  number  of  churches  along  the  pilgrimage  road,  and  in 
whole  districts  of  France.  St.-Sernin  of  Toulouse  is  an  evident  copy 
of  the  basilica  at  Compostela ;  so  is  Ste.-Foy  of  Conques  and  so  were 
probably  St.-Martin  of  Tours  apd  St.-Martial  of  Limoges.  The  great 
abbey  of  Cluny  itself  was  influenced  by  Santiago.  From  these 
centres,  all,  except  Cluny,  on  the  road,  the  type  spread  through 
whole  districts  of  France,  through  Limousin,  through  Languedoc, 
through  Auvergne,  through  Burgundy.  Compostela  was  the  model 
from  which,  directly  or  indirectly,  was  derived  a  majority  of  the 
great  Romanesque  churches  of  the  XII  century  in  France.  The  type, 
modified  it  is  true,  but  still  unmistakable,  was  carried  into  Italy,  to 
Acerenza,  to  Venosa,  to  Aversa,  to  S.  Antimo.  The  church  at  Cavag- 
nolo  Po,  dedicated  to  the  pilgrimage  saint,  Ste.  Foy,  clearly  shows 
the  influence  of  this  type  of  construction.  In  Languedoc  and  Pro¬ 
vence  a  modification  of  the  Santiagoan  type  was  introduced.  The 
ambulatory  was  replaced  by  apses,  and  the  barrel  vaults  were 
pointed.  St.-Trophime  of  Arles,  on  the  road,  may  have  been  one  of 
the  centres  from  which  the  type  spread. 

The  Ile-de-France  owes  much  to  Compostela.  We  have  already 
remarked  that  the  broad-leaved  and  crocheted  capitals  characteristic 
of  the  transitional  style  of  the  middle  of  the  XII  century  are  in¬ 
spired,  not  by  nature,  as  has  been  supposed,  but  by  the  Xl-century 
work  at  Santiago.  The  half-barrel  vaults  thrown  across  the  galleries 

of  the  abbey,  now  gathered  together  in  the  Musee  Adrien  Dubouche  (No.  35,  37>  3^>  395 

41,  45,  46,  47,  48,  49,  50,  51,  52,  S3,  54,  72  —  see  Texier,  PI.  I,  Fig.  3),  show  such  nondescript 
workmanship  that  it  is  difficult  to  judge  of  their  date.  It  is  however  more  natural  to  suppose 
that  the  church  of  St.-Martial  was  reconstructed  after  the  fire  of  1122  (C.  de  Lasteyrie,  295). 


THE  PILGRIMAGE  TO  COMPOSTELA 


195 


of  St.-Etienne  of  Caen,  and  long  erroneously  (as  M.  Lefevre-Pontalis 
has  shown)  believed  to  be  the  germ  from  which  the  flying  buttress 
developed,  may  have  come  to  Caen  from  the  pilgrimage  churches 
as  well  as  from  Auvergned 

With  the  XII  century  passed  the  glory  of  Cluny.  The  power  of 
the  art-loving  monastery  was  supplanted  by  that  of  the  art-hating 
Cistercians.  The  popularity  of  the  pilgrimage  continued,  but  the 
first  fine  fire  of  enthusiasm  had  passed.  And  Spanish  sculpture  be¬ 
gan  to  decline.  Like  the  pilgrimage,  Spanish  plastic  art  reached  its 
highest  point  of  development  in  the  XII  century.  Nevertheless,  even 
in  decadence,  the  pilgrimage  road  continued  to  be  the  centre  from 
which  artistic  influences  spread.  It  was,  however,  as  in  France  itself, 
no  longer  the  Cluniac  monasteries,  but  the  secular  churches,  which 
fostered  the  ateliers.  On  the  pilgrimage  route  there  sprang  up  in 
Santo  Sepolcro  of  Estella  and  in  the  cathedrals  of  Leon,  Burgos, 
Vitoria  and  Pamplona  schools  of  sculpture  completely  French  in 
character.  From  these  centres  the  art  spread  throughout  Spain.  At 
Villacazar  on  the  road  was  another  centre,  cruder,  less  purely  French 
in  character.  From  the  centre  at  Santo  Domingo  de  la  Calzada  on 
the  road,  still  another  manner  of  sculpture  spread  to  San  Millan. 

The  developed  Gothic  architecture  of  northern  France  was  intro¬ 
duced  into  Spain  in  the  cathedrals  of  Leon  and  Burgos,  on  the  road ; 
thence  it  spread.  In  southern  France  a  local  Gothic  style  appeared 
at  St.-Nazaire  of  Carcassonne,  St.-Etienne  of  Toulouse  and  the 
Cathedral  of  Narbonne,all  on  the  road.  It  was  astyle  of  merit  which, 
as  in  the  cathedral  of  Narbonne  with  its  flying  battlements,  rises  at 
times  to  an  unexpected  height. 

The  stained  glass  of  the  North  was  introduced  at  Beziers  and  St.- 
Nazaire  of  Carcassonne  on  the  road.  The  latter  atelier  seems  to  show 
affiliations  with  that  of  Ste.-Radegonde  of  Poitiers.  The  art  spread 
to  St.-Michel  at  Carcassonne,  to  Albi,  to  Santes  Creuz  in  Catalonia 
and  to  Narbonne.  St.-Nazaire  of  Carcassonne  became,  indeed,  the 
centre  of  an  important  school  of  glass-making,  which  preserved  the 

^  Half-barrel  vaults  over  the  galleries  buttressed  the  dome  of  St.-Benigne  of  Dijon. 


196  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

traditions  of  the  XIII  century  almost  unmodified  long  after  they  had 
been  abandoned  in  the  North.  The  church  at  Caylus  contains  a  win¬ 
dow  with  small  medallions  and  Gothic  colouring  executed  in  the  XV 
century.  At  Leon,  on  the  road,  arose  another  school  of  glass¬ 
painting. 

As  late  as  the  XV  century  the  Romanesque  architecture  of  Com¬ 
postela  still  haunted  the  memory  of  artists  in  northern  Europe.  The 
background  of  Van  Eyck’s  Annunciation  at  St.  Petersburg  repre¬ 
sents  the  interior  of  the  transept  of  the  cathedral  at  Santiago.’' 

It  is  therefore  evident  that  the  pilgrimages  are  an  important  fact 
in  the  history  of  mediaeval  art.  The  pilgrimage  roads  were  a  route 
along  which  ideas  travelled  in  both  directions  with  extraordinary 
facility.  The  pilgrimages  united  the  art  of  all  Europe  and  even  of 
Asia.  But  the  most  important  contribution  of  the  pilgrimages  to 
mediaeval  art  was  the  group  of  sculptures  produced  in  the  XII  cen¬ 
tury  along  the  lower  part  of  the  road  of  St.  James.  It  is  to  these  re¬ 
markable  monuments  and  their  influence  that  will  be  devoted  the 
remaining  chapters  of  this  book. 

^  Bulletin  Monumental,  1909,  150-151. 


II 

MOISSAC  AND  SOUILLAC 


''Pour  la  sculpture  romane”  M.  Bertaux  has  written,  "  il  ny  a  pas 
de  Pyrenees.”  It  is  a  commonplace  of  history  that  the  existing  fron¬ 
tier  between  France  and  Spain  was  first  established  by  St.  Louis. 
Before  the  XIII  century  the  mountains  formed  no  barrier.  The  same 
peoples,  Basques  or  Catalans,  lived,  as  they  still  live,  on  both  slopes. 

This  fundamental  fact  has  nevertheless  been  ignored  by  archae¬ 
ologists  and  historians  of  art.  All  students  of  Romanesque  sculpture 
have  followed  one  another  in  establishing  a  rigid  division  following 
the  modern  frontier.  They  have  seen  in  Toulouse  one  school,  in 
Spain  another  school.  And  especially  if  the  author  was  French,  he 
has  found  at  Toulouse  originality,  power,  inventiveness;  in  Spain 
thoughtless  copying  of  French  motives.  The  fact  that  at  this  period 
Toulouse  was  not  French  had  no  power  to  dampen  the  enthusiasm 
of  patriotism.  National  vanity  found  the  liveliest  satisfaction  in  de¬ 
preciating  the  monuments  on  the  Spanish  side  of  the  frontier,  and  in 
praising  those  on  the  French  side. 

Interest  in  this  sport  appears  to  have  blinded  all  eyes  to  the  still 
surely  obvious  truth,  that  the  art  of  the  two  sides  of  the  frontier  is 
precisely  the  same.  One  style  stretched  from  Santiago  along  the  pil¬ 
grimage  road  to  Toulouse  and  Moissac  and  Conques.  This  art  is 
neither  French  nor  Spanish.  It  is  the  art  of  the  pilgrimage.  It  is  as 
idle  to  discuss  whether  its  creative  centre  was  at  Toulouse  or  at 
Santiago,  as  it  is  to  discuss  whether  that  of  northern  French  sculp¬ 
ture  was  at  Chartres  or  Reims.  Both  Toulouse  and  Santiago  were 
centres.  The  same  sculptors  were  active  at  both.  Religiously  and 
consequently  financially,  Santiago  was  certainly  the  more  important. 
The  cathedral  possessed  six  sculptured  portals  against  the  single  one 
of  St.-Sernin.  The  atelier  at  Santiago  hence  naturally  employed  more 
artists  than  that  of  Toulouse ;  among  the  extant  fragments  we  can 


198  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

trace  seven  times  as  many  hands  at  Santiago  (Ill.  674-695)  as  at  St.- 
Sernin  (Ill.  296-322).  The  average  quality  of  the  work  at  Toulouse 
may  be  slightly  above  the  average  at  Santiago,  although  the  best 
work  at  Compostela  equals  if  it  does  not  surpass  anything  at  St.- 
Sernin.  Nothing  in  Spain  is  more  degraded  than  the  portal  at  Es- 
palion  (Ill.  402-408),  or  some  of  the  work  at  St.-Aventin  (Ill.  508- 
510)  and  St.-Bertrand-de-Comminges  (Ill.  323-326).  Sculptors  from 
Santiago  —  not  from  Toulouse  —  were  called  to  work  upon  the  church 
of  San  Isidoro  of  Leon  (Ill.  696-702)  and  upon  Ste.-Foy  of  Conques 
(Ill.  386,  392-401). 

A  peculiarity  of  the  school  of  the  pilgrimages  is  the  creation  of 
oases  of  art  in  the  midst  of  deserts.  Sculpture  flourished,  as  a  rule, 
only  in  pilgrimage  churches  throughout  the  entire  South-west.  Tou¬ 
louse  and  Moissac  are  as  isolated  in  sterile  Languedoc  as  Santiago  in 
the  wilds  of  Galicia.  Exceptionally  the  art  spread  from  the  pilgrim¬ 
age  churches  to  the  abbeys  or  cathedrals  or  parish  churches  not  on 
the  road  —  to  Segovia  (Ill.  755-760),  Sepulveda  (Ill.  799-805)  or 
Soria  (Ill.  795-798)  in  Spain,  to  Albi  (Ill.  453-455)  or  St.-Antonin 
(Ill.  358-359)  in  France.  Several  of  the  off-shoots  north  of  the 
Garonne  showed  great  vitality ;  but  in  southern  Languedoc,  as  in 
Spain,  they  withered  and  died.  It  was  from  the  pilgrimages  that  the 
art  was  born  ;  it  was  by  the  pilgrimages  that  it  lived ;  and  it  was  only 
in  the  pilgrimage  churches  that  it  really  flowered. 

The  earliest  extant  monument  of  pilgrimage  art  is  really  the  clois¬ 
ter  of  Santo  Domingo  de  Silos  that  we  have  already  studied.  The 
monastery  lies  to  the  south  of  Burgos,  and  a  day’s  journey  from  the 
regular  route  of  the  Pilgrims.  It  may  be  conjectured,  however,  that 
not  a  few  would  detour  to  visit  so  holy  a  place ;  the  pilgrim’s  wallet 
and  cockle-shell  of  the  Christ  in  the  Journey  to  Emmaus  (Ill.  667) 
argue  that  pilgrims  were  often  seen  in  the  abbey.  This  is,  I  believe, 
the  first  time  in  art  that  Christ  at  Emmaus  is  represented  as  a  pil¬ 
grim  to  St.  James. ^ 

^  M.  Omont  has  published  from  a  manuscript  of  Beauvais  a  mystery  of  the  XII  century 
dealing  with  the  Journey  to  Emmaus. 


MOISSAC  AND  SOUILLAC 


199 


The  school  of  sculpture,  so  brilliantly  inaugurated  at  Santo  Do¬ 
mingo  de  Silos,  did  not  remain  without  descendants.  At  Souillac,  in 
the  valley  of  the  Dordogne,  are  incorporated  in  the  west  wall  of  the 
church  fragments  of  an  ancient  portal  (Ill.  343'~35^)-  These  sculp¬ 
tures,  it  is  evident  enough,  are  closely  related  to  those  of  Santo  Do¬ 
mingo  (Ill.  666-673),  but  one  feels,  especially  in  certain  of  the  faces, 
the  freshness  of  the  fountain-head  of  Cluny.  The  aesthetic  value  of 
the  work  is  uneven.  Something  of  the  sense  for  composition  of  the 
Santo  Domingo  sculptor  is  carried  over  into  the  relief  with  the  story 
of  Theophilus  (Ill.  347-348).  The  two  seated  saints  flank  the  central 
group,  as  Memmi’s  Santa  Giulitta  and  Sant’  Ansano  flank  Simone’s. 
Annunciation.  The  figure  of  the  prostrate  Theophilus,  to  whom  the 
Virgin  returns  his  bond,  combines  with  the  shrine  to  form  a  sort  of 
arch  over  the  four  figures  enacting  the  central  portion  of  the  drama.. 
It  is,  indeed,  probable  that  this  composition  is  taken  over  directly^ 
from  Silos.  In  the  wall  of  that  church,  near  the  door  of  the  Camara 
Santa,  is  a  relief  of  the  XIII  century  representing  Santo  Domingo 
like  a  good  pilgrimage  saint  delivering  prisoners.^  Now  the  composi¬ 
tion  of  this  late  relief,  with  a  large  figure  at  either  side,  while  the 
prisoners  are  grouped  in  the  centre  under  an  arch,  is  strikingly  like 
that  of  the  Souillac  Theophilus.  It  is  probable  that  there  was  in  the 
cloister  at  Silos,  or  at  least  by  the  sculptor  of  the  cloister,  a  relief  with 
this  composition  which  was  reproduced  at  Souillac  and  by  the  later 
sculptor  at  Silos. 

The  same  sense  for  composition  which  is  remarkable  in  the  Souillac 
Theophilus,  presides  also  in  the  altogether  remarkable  trumeau 
(Ill.  349-352).  Here  in  the  midst  of  apparent  confusion  all  is  order. 
The  thrice  repeated  figure  of  a  bird-headed  monster  divides  the  front 
face  into  carefully  balanced  and  rhythmic  patterns.  The  entwined 
figures  of  the  farther  side  (Ill.  350)  are  among  the  inspired  creations 
of  mediaeval  art.  Satisfying,  too,  even  in  ruin,  is  the  Joseph  (Ill. 
343,  346)  that  once  doubtless  flanked  the  portal ;  while  the  opposite 
Isaiah  (Ill.  344-345)  haunts  every  memory.  There  is,  it  is  true,in  this 

^  Illustrated  by  Roulin,  9. 


200  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

figure  a  certain  something  which  leads  one  to  understand  why  solemn 
archaeologists,  notwithstanding  his  clearly  engraved  name  and 
ample  beard,  have  set  him  down  as  a  “foolish  virgin” ;  but  the  move¬ 
ment  of  the  figure  is  so  stimulating,  the  swirl  of  the  draperies  so 
intoxicating,  the  lines  of  the  scroll  so  decorative,  that  the  severest 
critic  must  capitulate. 

The  sculptor  of  Souillac  worked  also  upon  the  portal  of  St.-Martin 
of  Brive  (Ill.  353-354).  Fragments  of  this  which  have  been  recovered 
by  excavations  are  now  assembled  in  the  Musee  Massenat.^  It  is 
curious,  in  view  of  the  Spanish  origin  of  this  master,  to  observe  that 
Viollet-le-Duc  remarked  Arab  character  in  the  capitals.^ 

The  capitals  of  St.-Martin  of  Brive  are  not  by  the  hand  of  the 
master  of  Souillac.  We  have  only  to  compare  the  clumsy  and  form¬ 
less  draperies  (Ill.  355-357)  with  the  exquisitely  modelled  ones  of  the 
trumeau  at  Souillac  (Ill.  349-352) ;  the  heavy  proportions  and  over¬ 
large  heads  of  the  capitals  of  St.-Martin  (Ill.  355-357)  with  the  slen¬ 
der  proportions  and  dainty  heads  of  the  master  of  Souillac  (Ill.  343- 
354) ;  or  most  of  all  the  general  inferiority  of  execution  in  the  capitals 
(Ill.  355-357)  with  the  superlative  technique  of  the  Souillac  artist 
(Ill.  343-354)  to  be  convinced  of  the  fact.  However,  it  is  none  the 
less  certain  that  the  sculptor  of  the  capitals  imitated  carefully  the 
style  of  the  master  of  Souillac.  The  head  of  his  Christ  (Ill.  355)  is  an 
obvious  copy  of  the  Souillac  master’s  Adam  (Ill.  353).  The  face  of  his 
executioner  (Ill.  355)  recalls  that  of  the  St.  Stephen  at  Souillac 
(Ill.  347) .  The  draperies  of  his  angel  (Ill.  3 56)  are  evidently  an  imita¬ 
tion  of  draperies  of  the  type  of  those  of  the  Souillac  Isaiah  (Ill.  344). 
We  have,  therefore,  in  the  St.-Martin  capitals  an  inferior  sculptor 
who  imitates  very  exactly  certain  details  of  the  style  of  the  Souillac 
master. 

A  problem  of  unusual  interest  is  the  question  of  the  relationship  of 
the  St.-Martin  capitals  to  the  pulpit  at  Volterra,  in  distant  Tuscany 
(Ill.  194-196).  The  style  of  the  pulpit  is  clearly  compounded  of  many 
different  elements.  The  Visitation  (Ill.  196)  reproduces  line  for  line 

*  Bonnay,  237.  ^  Forot,  68. 


MOISSAC  AND  SOUILLAC 


201 


the  same  subject  on  the  impost  of  S.  Andrea  of  Pistoia,  by  Enrico 
(Ill.  192).  A  much  stronger  influence,  however,  is  that  of  St.-Gilles. 
The  ram  in  the  bushes  of  the  Vol terra  Sacrifice  of  Isaac  (Ill.  195)  re¬ 
produces  precisely  the  last  sheep  to  the  right  in  the  St.-Gilles  scene 
of  the  Money  Changers  (Ill.  1317).  The  curious  draperies,  the  folds 
of  which  are  indicated  by  a  slash  ending  in  an  “eye,”  for  example  in 
the  Abraham  (Ill.  195),  could  only  have  been  derived  from  the  work 
of  Brunus  at  St.-Gilles  (Ill.  1303).  The  facial  types  are  many  of  them 
directly  taken  over  from  St.-Gilles  —  the  Zacharias  (Ill.  196)  repro¬ 
duces  the  last  figure  to  the  right  in  the  lintel  of  the  central  portal  at 
St.-Gilles  (Ill.  1318) ;  the  face  of  the  angel  at  Vol  terra  (Ill.  196)  is  like 
that  of  the  executioner  to  the  left  in  the  St.-Gilles  Betrayal  (Ill. 
1319);  the  facial  types  in  the  Volterra  Last  Supper  (Ill.  194)  are 
analogous  to  those  of  the  St.-Gilles  Betrayal  (Ill.  1319,  1320). 

It  is  certain,  therefore,  that  the  sculptor  of  the  Volterra  pulpit  had 
been  at  St.-Gilles,  and  had  taken  thence  many  details  of  his  style. 
Now  if  we  subtract  from  his  work  at  Volterra  what  he  had  learned  at 
St.-Gilles  and  at  Pistoia,  we  have  left  a  personality  strangely  like 
that  of  the  master  of  the  Brive  capitals.  The  head  of  the  Abraham 
at  Volterra  (Ill.  195)  is  a  head  of  the  Souillac  master,  precisely  like 
that  which  the  sculptor  of  the  capitals  had  reproduced  in  his  Christ 
at  Brive  (Ill.  355).  The  head  at  the  feet  of  the  Volterra  Abraham 
(Ill.  195)  recalls  the  seated  executioner  in  the  Brive  capital  (Ill.  355). 
The  head  of  the  angel  at  Volterra  (Ill.  195)  is  like  that  of  the  execu¬ 
tioner  at  Brive  (Ill.  355).  The  face  of  St.  Peter  in  the  Brive  Giving 
of  the  Keys  is  reproduced  in  that  of  Christ  in  the  Volterra  Last  Sup¬ 
per  (Ill.  194).  There  are  at  Brive  and  Volterra  the  same  heavy  fig¬ 
ures,  the  same  disproportionate  heads.  There  is  the  same  copying  of 
the  manner  of  more  gifted  sculptors.  I  have  little  hesitation  in  con¬ 
cluding  that  the  Volterra  pulpit,  although  the  style  seems  superfi¬ 
cially  so  different,  is  really  by  the  same  artist  as  the  Brive  capitals, 
but  executed  at  a  later  phase  of  his  career,  and  after  he  had  studied 
St.-Gilles  and  the  sculptures  of  Tuscany. 

We  have  remarked  that  the  Volterra  pulpit  shows  draperies  copied 


202  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

from  those  of  Enrico  at  S.  Andrea  of  Pistoia.  Now  these  draperies 
of  Enrico  are  themselves  in  turn  derived  from  the  Pisa  pulpit  of 
Guglielmo  Tedesco  now  at  Cagliari  (Ill.  1 86-18 8).  Since  this  pulpit 
was  executed  in  1158-1 162,  we  may  infer  that  the  work  of  Enrico  at 
S.  Andrea  of  Pistoia  (Ill.  191-193)  is  later  than  1162,  and  the  Vol- 
terra  pulpit  later  still. 

Romanesque  sculpture  offers  no  more  baffling  problem  than  the 
relationship  of  Souillac  to  the  porch  at  Moissac.  It  seems  clear  that 
the  tympanum  of  Moissac  (Ill.  339-342)  is  earlier  than  any  of  the 
work  at  Souillac  (Ill.  343-352).  On  the  other  hand,  the  reliefs  of  the 
porch  at  Moissac  (Ill.  360-377)  appear  to  be  the  work  of  an  inferior 
artist  who  imitated  alternately  the  earlier  tympanum  (Ill.  339-342) 
and  Souillac  (Ill.  343-352).  His  trumeau  (Ill.  362)  is  inspired  by  that 
of  Souillac  (Ill.  349-352)  ;  but  the  admirably  subordinated  detail  of 
the  original  has  been  suppressed,  and  the  crisscrossed  monsters  are 
copied  from  the  earlier  capitals  (Ill.  337)  of  the  Moissac  porch.  The 
trumeau  (Ill.  362)  has  gained  a  certain  brutal  power,  but  has  lost 
the  finer  and  more  imaginative  qualities  of  the  Souillac  original  (Ill. 
349-352).  The  prophet  (Ill.  363,  365)  in  relief  on  the  east  side  of  the 
trumeau  is  obviously  imitated  from  the  Souillac  Isaiah  (Ill. 344,  345) ; 
but  the  life,  the  movement  and  the  vigour  of  the  original  figure  are 
lacking.  Santo  Domingo  draperies  have  been  supplanted  by  the 
Cluniac  draperies  of  the  tympanum ;  the  figure,  notwithstanding  its 
mannerisms,  is  dull.  Even  more  commonplace  is  the  prophet  of  the 
west  jamb  (Ill.  364),  and  how  inferior  to  the  Joseph  of  Souillac  (Ill. 
343)  !  But  it  is  in  the  Peter  (Ill.  360)  and  the  Isaiah  (Ill.  361)  flanking 
the  doorway  that  the  inferiority  of  the  Moissac  artist  is  most  appar¬ 
ent.  The  Peter  (Ill.  360)  is  an  unhappy  adaptation  of  the  angel  to  the 
left  in  the  tympanum  (Ill.  340) ;  the  Isaiah  (Ill.  361)  repeats  the  out¬ 
lines  of  the  Souillac  Joseph  (Ill.  343).  The  reliefs  with  scenes  from 
the  story  of  Lazarus  (Ill.  366-369),  like  those  opposite  dealing  with 
the  early  life  of  Christ  (Ill.  372-375),  are  plodding  imitations  of  the 
manner  of  the  tympanum.  In  the  representation  of  the  vice  of 
Luxury  (Ill.  371),  however,  the  sculptor  shows  quite,  unexpectedly 


MOISSAC  AND  SOUILLAC 


203 


wealth  of  imagination  and  tragic  power.  This  is  a  great  grotesque. 
Opposite,  the  Visitation  (Ill.  377)  also  rises  to  extraordinary  heights. 
I  should  hardly  know  where  to  find  more  sensitive  line,  more  ex¬ 
pressive  drawing,  more  delicate  finish.  One  is  tempted  to  conjecture 
that  these  masterpieces  are  by  another  and  much  finer  hand. 

The  influence  of  Santo  Domingo  de  Silos  continued  to  be  exerted 
until  a  late  period  of  the  XII  century.  The  series  of  reliefs,  part  of 
which  is  preserved  at  St.-Guilhem-le-Desert  (Ill.  1399)  and  part  at 
the  University  of  Montpellier  (Ill.  1397,  1398),  is  derived  from  this 
original.^ 

The  cloister  of  Moissac  (Ill.  262-287)  was,  as  an  inscription  proves, 
in  construction  in  1100,  and  the  pier  sculptures  appear  to  have  been 
executed  in  this  year.  Moissac  was  a  Cluniac  abbey  on  the  road ;  but 
inspiration  was  sought  not  in  Burgundy,  but  in  Santo  Domingo  de 
Silos  (Ill.  666-673).  Thence  is  derived  the  architecture  of  the  cloister 
with  its  coupled  columns  (the  pointed  arches  are,  of  course,  the  result 
of  a  later  reconstruction) ;  thence  the  pier  sculptures,  thence  the 
plastic  style. 

The  Cluniac  grace  and  movement  which  bubble  at  Santo  Domingo 
have  dried  up  at  Moissac.  These  reliefs  seem  made  of  cast  iron.  The 
scale  has  been  coarsened ;  the  figures  appear  frozen.  This  immobility 
produces  at  first  sight  an  impression  of  archaism ;  but  on  closer 
study  it  becomes  evident  that  the  Moissac  sculptures  must  be  later 
than  Santo  Domingo.  The  facial  types,  while  closely  related  to  those 
of  the  Spanish  cloister,  are  more  varied  and  far  better  characterized. 
The  conventions  for  the  hair  and  beard,  while  very  similar,  are  at 
Moissac  more  naturalistic.  The  gestures  are  more  varied  and  freer 
than  at  Santo  Domingo.  Finally,  to  resort  to  a  mechanical  proof,  the 
form  of  the  letters  of  the  inscriptions  at  Santo  Domingo  is  more 
primitive  than  at  Moissac. 

The  internal  evidence  of  style  entirely  reinforces,  therefore,  the 
documentary  evidence  that  the  Moissac  cloister  is  later  than  Santo 
Domingo.  It  is  hardly  necessary  to  point  out  how  closely  the  Moissac 

^  They  are  executed  by  the  hand  of  the  Third  Master  of  St.-Gilles. 


204  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

sculptor  has  followed  his  predecessor.  The  convention  of  two  parallel 
lines  used  to  indicate  the  folds  of  the  draperies,  the  drawing  of  the 
eyes,  the  gestures,  the  position  of  the  feet  placed  on  a  sloping  shelf, 
many  other  details  betray  a  close  relationship.  Indeed  the  Spanish 
influence  at  Moissac  was  always  strong.  “  On  remarque  sur  un  chapi- 
teau  des  caract'eres  arahes  maladroitement  copies  par  un  lapidaire  igno¬ 
rant  leur  signification”  ^  The  crossed  animals  of  the  porch  capital  are 
similar  to  those  of  a  Mozarabic  codex  of  the  X  century  published  by 
Gomez-Moreno. 

Like  the  sculptor  of  Santo  Domingo,  the  master  of  the  Moissac 
cloister  made  much  use  of  ivory-carvings.  It  seems  to  have  been 
directly  from  this  source,  rather  than  from  Santo  Domingo,  that  he 
derived  the  arches  under  which  his  figures  are  placed.  The  horizontal 
bottom  line  of  the  draperies  and  the  modelling  of  the  faces  is  strik¬ 
ingly  analogous  to  the  ivories  of  the  Fitzwilliam  Museum  at  Cam¬ 
bridge  2  and  the  Stiftsbibliothek  of  Frankfurt.®  The  motive  of  two 
angels  carrying  a  medallion,  which  is  found  on  one  of  the  capitals  of 
the  Moissac  cloister,  also  occurs  in  an  ivory  of  the  Ada  group,  now  in 
the  Victoria  and  Albert  Museum  of  London.'*  The  face  of  the  St. 
James  of  the  cloister  pier  (Ill.  265)  and  which  later  reappears  in  the 
Christ  of  the  Flagellation  in  the  tympanum  of  Santiago  (Ill.  680)  is 
closely  analogous  to  that  of  St.  Peter  in  an  ivory  of  the  Museo 
Civico  of  Bologna  assigned  to  c.  500.  There  is  the  nose,  the  same  eye, 
the  same  mouth.®  I  suspect,  indeed,  that  the  sculptor  of  the  Moissac 
cloister  held  in  his  hand  an  ivory,  probably  of  the  Ada  group.  The 
peculiar  stiffness  and  coarseness  of  his  figures  can  only  be  due  to  this 
inspiration.  So,  too,  their  strength.  After  all,  this  the  earliest  ® 
extant  cycle  of  the  apostles  in  French  sculpture  is  also  the  most  un¬ 
forgettable. 

^  Michel,  I,  2,  617. 

^  Goldschmidt,  I,  No,  120.  Ibid.,  No.  121. 

*  Ibid.,  No.  1 4.  This  motive  occurs  frequently  on  ancient  sarcophagi.  But  I  can  seejittle 
evidence  that  the  master  of  the  Moissac  cloister  made  any  use  of  Roman  models.  The  motives 
of  ancient  sculpture  which  are  found  in  his  work  may  well  have  come  to  him  through  the 
ivories. 

5  Illustrated  by  Graeven,  II,  i. 


®  Except  Azay-le-Rideau  (Ill.  896). 


MOISSAC  AND  SOUILLAC 


205 


It  may  be  common  derivation  from  Ada  group  ivories  (or,  as  Mr. 
Morey  would  have  it,  miniatures)  which  explains  the  analogies 
between  the  cloister  of  Moissac  and  the  works  of  Guglielmo  da  Mo¬ 
dena.  At  all  events  it  is  certain  that  the  latter  also  fell  under  this 
influence.  His  style  is  distinctly  foreshadowed  in  an  ivory  of  the 
X  century  in  the  John  Rylands  collection  at  Manchester;^  while 
his  curls,  which  also  appear  at  Moissac,  may  be  traced  as  far  back 
as  Irish  manuscripts. ^ 

The  capitals  of  the  Moissac  cloister  (Ill.  274-287)  are  the  work  of 
the  same  atelier  that  executed  the  pier  sculptures,  if  not  of  the  same 
master.  They  are  less  under  the  influence  of  Santo  Domingo  de  Silos. 
There  was  here  originated  an  iconographic  program  to  which  the  XII 
century  repeatedly  turned  for  inspiration. 

In  the  ambulatory  of  St.-Sernin  of  Toulouse  are  enwalled  sculp¬ 
tures  (Ill.  296-305)  which  are  clearly  related  to  the  pier  reliefs  of 
Moissac.  Since  the  original  position  of  these  reliefs  in  the  church  is 
unknown,  it  is  impossible  to  determine  their  date  with  accuracy  by 
documentary  evidence,  although  the  building  dates  of  the  church 
have  come  down  to  us.  A  new  basilica  was  begun,  presumably  soon 
after  the  foundation  of  the  chapter  regular  in  1077 ;  this  was  conse¬ 
crated  a  first  time  in  1096  and  a  second  time  in  1 1 19.  When  St.  Ray¬ 
mond  died  in  1 1 18,  the  nave  was  finished  up  to  the  level  of  the  clere¬ 
story  windows.^ 

St.-Sernin  stood  in  the  same  relation  to  Compostela  as  S.  Niccola 
of  Trani  to  S.  Niccola  of  Bari  —  it  was  an  imitation  which  threatened 
to  develop  into  a  serious  rival.  Among  the  fabulous  relics  claimed  by 
the  chapter  were  the  oliphant  and  the  bodies  of  six  apostles,  includ¬ 
ing  “  the  greater  part”  of  that  of  St.  James  himself!  The  new  basilica, 

^  Illustrated  by  Goldschmidt,  I,  No.  27. 

^  See  the  Landisfarne  Gospels,  Book  of  St.  Chad,  Litchfield,  fol.  142,  illustrated  by  Zimmer- 
mann,  246.  From  Irish  manuscripts,  too,  seems  to  have  come  the  wavy  line  of  the  lower  edges 
of  the  draperies,  characteristic  both  of  Lombardy  and  of  Aquitaine  —  see  the  Kells  Gospel, 
Trinity  College,  Dublin,  No.  A.  i.  6.,  fol.  32  b,  illustrated  by  Zimmermann,  171. 

®  Quid  tandem  de  egregio  ecclesie  Sancti  Saturnini  opere,  cui  per  multa  annorum  tempora 
prefuit,  et  preter  capitis  membrum,  quod  jam  completum  fuerat,  corpus  a  fundamentis  in- 
cipiens,  ante  obitus  sui  (diem),  divina  opitulante  misericordia,  parietes  in  circuitu  ad  fenes- 
trarum  completionem  usque  perduxit  (cit.  Mortet,  262). 


2o6  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

begun  in  the  latter  part  of  the  XI  century,  was  almost  the  exact  du¬ 
plicate  of  the  great  church  at  Compostela.  All  this  was  too  much  for 
the  patience  of  Cluny  which  had  the  interests  of  the  pilgrimage  so 
vitally  at  heart.  The  Cluniacizing  bishop  of  Toulouse  found  a  pre¬ 
text  for  expelling  the  canons  (1082),  and  installed  monks  of  Cluny  in 
their  place. But  a  year  later  the  pope,  who  doubtless  began  to  be 
already  somewhat  alarmed  at  the  growing  power  of  Santiago,  inter¬ 
vened  through  his  legate  to  restore  the  canons.  These  had  now,  how¬ 
ever,  learned  their  lesson ;  they  perceived  that  their  best  interests, 
like  those  of  Cluny,  lay  in  fostering  the  pilgrimage.  The  guide  of  the 
XII  century  makes  of  St.-Sernin  one  of  the  principal  pilgrimage 
churches,  but  the  author  feels  called  upon  to  warn  the  reader  against 
the  spurious  relics  of  St.  James. 

The  provenance  of  the  sculptures  now  enwalled  in  the  ambulatory 
of  St.-Sernin  (Ill.  296-305)  has  remained  a  mystery.  The  suggestion 
that  they  are  fragments  of  a  destroyed  tympanum  is  so  obviously 
wide  of  the  mark  that  it  may  be  at  once  dismissed.  The  close  resem¬ 
blance  of  the  Toulouse  reliefs  to  those  of  the  piers  of  Moissac  (Ill. 
262-273)  has  given  some  ground  for  supposing  that  the  St.-Sernin 
sculptures  are  fragments  from  a  similar  cloister,  which  were  enwalled 
in  the  ambulatory  at  a  comparatively  recent  date.  It  is,  however, 
evident  that  the  St.-Sernin  sculptures  could  never  have  been  placed 
on  the  piers  of  a  cloister.  The  Majestas  Domini  (Ill.  296)  must  have 
once  formed  the  centre  of  a  composition ;  to  the  right  of  Christ  stood 
the  cherub  (Ill.  297)  and  to  the  left  the  seraph  (Ill.  298)  as  indicated 
by  the  inscriptions.  The  other  two  angels  (Ill.  300,  302)  similarly 
form  a  pair,  which  presumably  also  flanked  a  now  lost  central  com¬ 
position,  perhaps  a  Virgin.  Finally  the  two  saints  (Ill.  303,  304)  also 
must  have  been  symmetrically  disposed.  Now  these  balanced  reliefs 
would  be  inexplicable  in  a  cloister ;  they  might,  however,  very  easily 

^  (Isamus  episcopus)  querelam  habult  cum  canonicis  sancti  Saturnini,  qui  pont’ificiam  sub- 
jectionem  detrectabant;  quapropter  Hunaldo  Moissiacensi  et  Hugoni  Cluniacensi  abbatibus 
eorum  ecclesiam  tradidit  an.  1082,  instante  Guillelmo  comite  pro  monachis  canonicorumloco 
substituendis;  sed  donatio  contradicente  Richardo  pontificio  legato,  suum  sortita  non  est 
efFectum,  nam  anno  sequente  canonici  regulares  revocati  sunt  in  eamdem  ecclesiam  {Gallia 
Christiana,  XIII,  13). 


MOISSAC  AND  SOUILLAC 


207 


have  been  arranged  about  an  altar ;  on  the  chief  face  the  Majestas 
Domini^  the  cherub  and  the  seraph  (Ill.  296,  297,  298) ;  on  the  re¬ 
verse  the  lost  Virgin  flanked  two  angels  (Ill.  300, 302) ;  on  either  end 
a  saint  (Ill.  303,  304). 

The  St.-Sernin  relief  of  the  Majestas  Domini  follows  precisely  the 
formula  consecrated  for  altar-frontals.  Christ  is  seated  in  an  oval 
aureole,  pointed  at  the  top  and  bottom  (Ill.  296) ;  at  the  four  corners 
are  the  symbols  of  the  four  Evangelists,  bringing  the  panel  to  a  rec¬ 
tangular  shape,  higher  than  broad.  This  peculiar  composition  was 
probably  first  invented  for  a  book-cover,’-  but  in  the  XII  century  had 
become  the  stock  theme  for  the  decoration  of  the  front  face  of  ante- 
pendia.  In  the  Palio  d’Oro  of  S.  Ambrogio,^  which  dates  from  the  IX 
century,  the  Majestas  Domini  already  occupies  the  centre  of  the 
principal  face,  but  the  symbols  of  the  Evangelists,  instead  of  being  in 
the  corners,  are  in  the  arms  of  the  cross  radiating  from  the  central 
medallion.  In  the  even  earlier  altar  of  Cividale  ^  Christ  in  an  aureole 
similarly  occupies  the  centre  of  the  front  face.  In  later  times  the 
Majestas  Domini  was  regularly  represented  in  the  frontals  of  altars 
in  precisely  the  peculiar  oblong  composition  we  find  in  the  St.-Sernin 
relief.  We  learn  from  the  Pilgrims’  Guide  that  the  destroyed  Area  of 
St.-Gilles  had  on  the  front  a  Majestas  Domini  placed  between  a 
cherub  and  a  seraph ;  the  analogy  with  St.-Sernin  is  therefore  com¬ 
plete.  At  St.-Junien  (Ill.  450-452)  the  Majestas  Domini  is  in  the 
panel  at  the  end,  instead  of  in  the  front ;  the  composition  is,  however 
precisely  that  of  the  St.-Sernin  relief.  At  Airvault  (Ill.  964)  there  is 
extant  an  altar-frontal  which  presents  the  closest  points  of  contact 
with  the  St.-Sernin  fragments.  The  Majestas  Domini  shows  the 
usual  composition  ;  and  this  central  group  is  flanked  by  figures  stand¬ 
ing  in  arches,  exactly  like  the  cherub  and  seraph  of  St.-Sernin.  The 
Majestas  Domini  from  Briare  (Ill.  1434)  now  in  the  museum  at  Or¬ 
leans  is  a  fragment  of  an  altar-frontal  also  very  similar  in  composition 

^  See,  for  example,  the  silver  one  at  Spalato,  illustrated  by  Folnesics,  'Dalmatien,  104. 

^Illustrated  in  Porter,  Lombard  Architecture,  IV,  Plate  122,  Fig.  3;  Plate  123,  Fig.  i,  2; 
Plate  124,  Fig.  i,  2. 

^  Illustrated  ibid.,  Plate  3,  Fig.  2. 


2o8  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

to  the  Toulouse  relief  of  the  same  subject.  The  fragments  of  the  other 
altar  at  St.-Benoit-sur-Loire  (Ill.  1421,  1422)  show  that  here,  too, 
there  was  a  series  of  figures  under  arches.  The  usual  composition  of 
the  Majestas  Domini  is  found  on  the  front  face  of  the  altar  at  Avenas 
(Ill.  ii).  Similar,  too,  is  the  Majestas  Domini  of  the  Area  Santa  of 
Oviedo  (Ill.  656)  and  here,  also,  is  found  the  motive  of  flanking  fig¬ 
ures  in  arches.  The  same  composition  is  repeated  in  a  wooden  altar- 
frontal  from  Sigena,  now  in  the  museum  of  Lerida  (Ill.  555)  and  in 
another  of  the  museum  of  Vich.  The  formula  more  or  less  varied  is 
repeated  many  times  in  the  superb  collections  of  painted  antependia 
assembled  in  the  museums  of  Barcelona  and  Vich.  A  composition 
precisely  analogous  to  that  of  St.-Sernin,  with  a  Majestas  Domini 
flanked  by  figures  of  equal  height  under  arches,  is  found  in  the  enamel 
altar-frontal  of  Santo  Domingo  de  Silos  now  in  the  museum  of  Bur¬ 
gos.  The  altar-frontal  of  S.  Marco  at  Venice  was  made  originally  in 
1105,  but  in  1205  enamels  from  Constantinople  executed  between 
1 1 18  and  1143  were  added,  and  the  whole  was  re-made  in  1345.  On 
this  is  represented  the  Majestas  Domini^  and  St.  Michael  bearing  the 
scroll  Ari02,  AFIOS,  AFIOS  which  is  the  Greek  version  of  the 
words  SanctuSy  SanctuSy  Sanctus  inscribed  on  the  scrolls  of  the  St.- 
Sernin  cherub  and  seraph.  The  altar-frontal  of  Citta  di  Castello  has 
the  Majestas  Domini  like  that  of  St.-Sernin,  and  the  frontal  from 
Bale  now  in  the  Musee  de  Cluny  has  full-length  flanking  figures  under 
arches  like  St.-Sernin.  In  view  of  these  analogies  there  can  be  little 
doubt  that  notwithstanding  their  somewhat  extraordinary  height 
the  St.-Sernin  fragments  are  from  a  sculptured  altar  or  Area. 

It  remains  uncertain  whether  this  was  the  high  altar  of  the  church. 
It  is  tempting  to  connect  the  sculptures  with  the  consecration  of 
1096;  but  the  style  gives  reason  to  believe  that  they  are  a  decade 
later.  In  fact,  the  sculptures  of  the  St.-Sernin  ambulatory  (Ill.  296- 
305)  seem  to  be  derived  from  the  reliefs  of  the  piers  of  Moissac  (Ill. 
262-273),  which  are  dated  iioo.  The  close  relationship  of  the  two  is 
obvious.  Figures  of  the  same  adamantine  hardness  are  placed  under 
similar  arches ;  the  proportions  and  the  general  effect  are  strikingly 


MOISSAC  AND  SOUILLAC 


209 


analogous.  The  curious  wings  of  the  Toulouse  angels  recur  in  certain 
capitals  of  the  Moissac  cloisters  (Ill.  281,  282,  284).  The  Toulouse 
sculptures  appear,  however,  later  and  inferior.  The  drapery  folds, 
although  very  similar,  are  more  complicated  and  less  well  under¬ 
stood  ;  the  eyebrows  are  rendered  by  a  convention  more  naturalistic, 
but  less  effective ;  the  drawing  of  the  feet  is  much  poorer ;  the  faces 
are  less  well  done;  the  hair  conventions  are  weaker.  On  the  other 
hand,  it  is  certain  that  the  sculptor  of  St.-Sernin  was  also  influenced 
by  Spanish  art.  His  style  shows  close  analogies  with  the  Area  of  San 
Felices  (Ill.  661-664).  The  facial  types,  the  folds  of  the  drapery  indi¬ 
cated  by  two  parallel  lines,  the  fondness  for  beardless  faces, the  hands 
raised,  palm  outwards,  the  hair  conventions  to  a  certain  extent,  but 
much  more  the  conventions  of  the  beard,  and  the  peculiar  diamond 
ornament  introduced  on  the  edges  of  the  tunic  of  Christ  in  the  Area 
(Ill.  661)  and  in  the  aureole  at  Toulouse  (Ill.  296)  all  bear  witness  to 
a  close  relationship.  The  drapery  folds  indicated  by  two  parallel 
lines  is  an  old  motive,  which  can  be  found  almost  anywhere ;  Spain, 
however,  possesses,  I  believe,  the  earliest  example  in  the  celebrated 
“Lady  of  Elche.”  ^  The  convention  persisted  in  later  times,  being 
found,  for  example,  in  the  Bible  of  Avila.^  It  may  have  come  to  both 
Moissac  and  Toulouse  from  Spain.  The  peculiar  shin  line,  character¬ 
istic  of  the  Toulouse  sculptures  (Ill.  304),  is  found  as  early  as  1075 
the  Area  Santa  of  Oviedo  (Ill.  658).  The  composition  of  the  Majestas 
Domini  of  the  St.-Sernin  ambulatory  was  precisely  that  destined  to 
become  so  popular  in  the  Catalan  antependia. 

The  sculptor  of  the  St.-Sernin  ambulatory  reliefs  was  also  in¬ 
fluenced  by  Santo  Domingo  de  Silos.  If  we  compare  the  face  of  his 
seraph  (Ill.  299)  with  the  harpies  of  the  dated  capital  of  1073-1076 
at  Santo  Domingo  (Ill.  666),  we  find  the  same  long  nose,  the  same 
badly  placed  eye,  the  same  low  head,  the  same  omission  of  the  fore¬ 
head.  The  Toulouse  ambulatory  sculptures  are,  in  fact,  extraordi¬ 
narily  unpleasant  productions.  They  may  be  assigned  to  about  the 

^  See  the  illustration  in  the  American  Journal  oj  Archaeology,  1921,  368. 

^  Illustrated  by  Schultz. 


210  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

year  1105,  and  it  may  be  conjectured  that  the  canons  of  St.-Sernin 
having  learned  of  the  new  sculptures  of  Moissac,  lost  no  time  in 
causing  them  to  be  imitated. 

Thus  the  sculpture  of  Languedoc,  like  nearly  all  mediaeval  art, 
was  compounded  of  many  elements  derived  from  various  sources. 
German  ivories,  Spanish  manuscripts,  Spanish  sculpture  and  Bur¬ 
gundian  sculpture  each  contributed  a  quota.  It  has  been  believed 
that  the  sculpture  of  Languedoc  gave  all  and  received  nothing. 
Such  a  facile  formula  will  hardly  satisfy  longer  thoughtful  students. 
Moissac  and  Toulouse  in  the  XII  century  not  only  radiated  in¬ 
fluences  to  the  other  schools  of  sculpture  in  Europe,  but  received 
influences. 


Ill 


LA  PUERTA  DE  LAS  PLATERIAS 

The  Mephistophelian  south  portal  of  St.-Sernin  (Ill.  308-315) 
must  have  been  executed  before,  and  probably  considerably  before, 
the  consecration  of  1119.  It  has  evidently  undergone  a  very  radical 
restoration  in  modern  times,  presumably  under  Viollet-le-Duc  in 
1855.  The  first  impression,  indeed,  is  that  of  being  in  the  presence  of 
a  modern  work.  The  restoration  may  account,  at  least  in  part,  for 
the  ugliness.  We  are  fortunately  able  to  judge  of  what  must  have 
been  the  quality  of  the  original  from  other  productions  of  the  same 
artist  —  a  fragment  of  a  seated  figure  in  the  museum  of  Toulouse 
(Ill.  306),  and  certain  sculptures  at  Santiago  (Ill.  679,  681,  684). 
This  master  appears,  as  has  often  been  pointed  out,  to  have  derived 
his  art  from  the  ambulatory  sculptures.  Undoubtedly,  however,  he 
also  sought  inspiration  in  Burgundy;  thence  must  have  come  the 
movement,  the  composition  of  the  lintel,  the  throwing  back  of  the 
heads  of  the  apostles. 

In  the  spandrels,  on  either  side  of  the  archivolt,  were  placed  the 
figures  of  St.  James  (Ill.  31 1)  and  St.  Peter  (Ill.  312).  M.  Male  be¬ 
lieves  that  these  are  by  the  same  hand  as  the  similar  figures  at  Santi¬ 
ago  (Ill.  676).  There  is,  beyond  question,  a  resemblance;  but  the 
much  finer  quality  of  the  Santiago  figures  (Ill.  676)  and  numerous 
other  differences  seem  to  indicate  that  these  are  not  the  works  of  the 
same  master.  It  is,  however,  evident  that  one  must  have  influenced 
the  other.  Which  is  the  original  ? 

The  documents  do  not  determine  the  question.  The  St.-Sernin 
portal  was  doubtless  finished  before  the  consecration  of  1119;  but  it 
is  hardly  conceivable  that  it  could  have  been  executed  before  mo. 
The  choir  of  Santiago  appears  to  have  been  completed  in  1102;  the 
nave  was  at  once  attacked,  and  finished  in  1124.  The  transept  por- 


212  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

tals  would  presumably  have  been  sculptured  in  the  earlier  rather  than 
in  the  later  part  of  this  building  campaign,  say  between  1102  and 
1 1 12.  No  definite  conclusion  as  to  priority  between  the  sculptures  of 
Santiago  and  those  of  St.-Sernin  can  be  drawn  from  these  data. 

The  internal  evidence  of  the  Santiago  portal  is  in  the  highest  de¬ 
gree  confusing  and  complicated.  M.  Bertaux  was  the  first  to  observe 
that  the  sculptures  (Ill.  674-691)  are  not  all  of  the  same  style ;  he  be¬ 
lieved  that  he  could  distinguish  the  work  of  two  different  hands.  It 
seems  to  me  that  the  sculptures  are  the  work  of  many  distinct  artists, 
perhaps  as  many  as  fourteen. 

A  glance  at  the  present  Puerta  de  las  Platerias  suffices  to  reveal  the 
fact  that  we  have  to  do  with  a  conglomeration  of  fragments  not  in 
their  original  position.  No  order  is  traceable  in  the  composition  as  a 
whole.  Little  statues,  big  statues,  pieces  of  statues  are  walled  in 
helter-skelter.  The  little  figures  of  apostles  above  the  eastern  portal 
(Ill.  676)  look  as  if  they  were  fragments  of  a  stone  altar-frontal  like 
that  of  Tahull.  The  man  riding  on  a  monster  of  the  west  tympanum 
(Ill.  679)  is  inserted  horizontally.  The  woman  holding  a  skull  just 
below  (Ill.  679)  has  had  her  shoulder  and  part  of  her  head  cut  off  to 
adapt  her  to  her  present  position.  The  flying  angel  in  the  spandrel  to 
the  right,  above  this  same  tympanum,  cuts  across  the  archivolt 
(Ill.  676).  Romanesque  sculptures,  we  have  seen,  were  carved  before 
being  placed;  and  Spanish  Romanesque  builders  were  notoriously 
careless  in  their  assembling  of  these  previously  prepared  decora¬ 
tions.  It  is,  however,  incredible  that  misfitting  should  have  been 
carried  to  this  degree.  Moreover,  details  like  the  beginning  of  an 
archivolt  under  the  feet  of  the  third  apostle,  upper  row,  left-hand 
side  (Ill.  675),  show  that  certain  sculptures  have  been  wrested  from 
a  very  definite  place  in  which  they  belonged. 

The  description  in  the  Pilgrims’  Guide  proves,  indeed,  that  certain 
ones  —  the  Expulsion  ^  (Ill.  675)  and  the  sign  of  the  zodiac,  Sagit¬ 
tarius  (Ill.  675)  —  which  are  now  in  the  south  portal  were  originally 

^  The  companion  relief  of  the  Expulsion,  mentioned  in  the  Guide  as  in  the  north  portal  and 
representing  God  reproving  Adam  and  Eve  is  now  in  the  museum  (Ill.  693). 


LA  PUERTA  DE  LAS  PLATERIAS 


213 


in  the  north  portal.  It  has  been  supposed  that  when  the  latter  was 
reconstructed  in  the  XVII  century,  the  discarded  reliefs  were  added 
to  the  previously  intact  sculpture  of  the  south  portal.  That  sculp¬ 
tures  of  the  north  portal  were  introduced  into  the  south  portal  is  cer¬ 
tainly  true.  But  recognition  of  that  fact  does  not  solve  the  mystery 
of  the  south  portal. 

The  truth  is,  I  think,  that  the  Puerta  de  las  Platerias  has  been 
twice  rebuilt.  The  mouldings  of  the  two  arches  have  advanced 
Gothic  profiles  (Ill.  676).  They  are  far  more  developed  than,  for  ex¬ 
ample,  those  of  the  portal  of  St.-Sernin  (Ill.  308).  The  bracketed  lin¬ 
tel  (Ill.  681)  is  similar  to  Mateo’s  in  the  Portico  de  la  Gloria  (Ill.  829). 
The  least  difficult  hypothesis  seems  to  be  that  Mateo  reconstructed 
the  Puerta  de  las  Platerias  in  the  second  half  of  the  XII  century.  It 
may  be  conjectured  that  at  this  time  he  incorporated  fragments  from 
the  west  fagade.  In  fact,  the  God  the  Father  in  white  marble  (Ill. 
676),  now  in  the  spandrel  between  the  two  portals,  may  be,  I  suspect, 
the  same  as  that  described  in  the  Guide  as  forming  part  of  the 
Transfiguration  of  the  west  facade. 

The  incoherencies  of  the  composition,  it  is  true,  can  only  be  par¬ 
tially  explained  on  this  hypothesis.  The  same  extraordinary  mixture 
of  subjects  that  exists  to-day  in  the  tympana  (Ill.  678-680)  is  very 
exactly  described  in  the  Xll-century  Guide.  The  four  angels  in  the 
spandrels  (Ill.  675-677),  the  lions  over  the  central  columns  are  all  as 
they  were.  On  the  other  hand,  there  are  notable  points  of  diver¬ 
gence  between  the  description  and  the  existing  monument.  One  of 
the  ''feroces  leones”  has  disappeared.’-  The  jamb  sculptures  are  not 
those  described  in  the  Guide.  Instead  of  the  existing  Sign  of  the 
Lion,  St.  Andrew,  Moses  and  a  bishop,  there  were  four  apostles. 

liminaribus  eiusdem  introitus,  sunt  duo  apostoli  quasi  valvarum 
custodes^  unus  ad  dexteram,  et  alius  ad  sinistram^  similiter  in  al  0 
introitu  sinistrali^  in  liminaribus  scilicet^  alii  duo  apostoli  habentur” 

These  lions  (Ill.  674)  were  copied  nearly  half  a  century  later  by  the  sculptor  who  executed 
the  fragments  now  incorporated  in  the  so-called  “throne  of  the  popes”  in  the  cathedral  of 
Avignon  (Ill.  1339,  i34o)-  Here  the  lion  of  St.  Mark  (Ill.  1339)  has  the  same  peculiar  paws,  the 
same  sardonic  expression  and  the  same  tail  curled  around  behind  his  leg. 


214  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

Such  discrepancies  indicate  that  the  portal  has  undergone  a  radical 
reconstruction.  The  j  amb  sculptures  could  hardly  have  been  changed 
without  tearing  the  portal  down  and  rebuilding  it. 

The  Puerta  de  las  Platerias,  therefore,  consists  of  fragments  of  at 
least  three  different  portals,  heaped  together  at  two  reconstructions, 
one  of  the  second  half  of  the  XII  century  and  the  other  of  the  XVII 
century.  Fortunately,  however,  the  description  mentions  specifically 
certain  reliefs  which  can  still  be  identified.  These  must  without  any 
question  have  belonged  to  the  original  portal. 

Among  the  sculptures  thus  described  in  the  Guide  is  the  St. 
James  (Ill.  676),^  which  resembles  the  statue  at  Toulouse  (Ill.  31 1)  ^ 
and  the  Christ  (Ill.  676)  in  the  spandrel  between  the  two  arches. 
These  figures  the  Guide  tells  us  belonged  to  a  cycle  of  Christ  and  the 
apostles,  several  other  figures  (Ill.  676)  of  which,  more  or  less  muti¬ 
lated,  are  still  in  their  original  position,  while  others  have  disappeared. 
Happily  for  our  investigations,  the  description  mentions  in  detail  the 
woman  holding  a  skull  in  her  lap  of  the  west  tympanum  (Ill.  679).  It 
gives,  indeed,  an  explanation  of  the  subject  which  otherwise  would 
entirely  escape  us.  The  figure  represents  the  vice  of  Luxury,  typified 
by  the  legend  of  the  adulterous  wife,  whose  husband  forced  her  to 
fondle  twice  a  day  the  head  of  her  lover  while  it  corrupted  in  her 
hands.  This  same  subject  is  represented  in  a  capital  of  Santa  Marta 
de  Tera,^  a  church  in  which  the  Toulousan  master  seems  also  to  have 
worked. 

The  interesting  part  of  this  relief  is  that  it  really  is  by  the  hand  of 
the  sculptor  of  the  portal  of  St.-Sernin.  Doubt  is  not  possible.  Not 

*  Some  light  upon  the  singular  form  given  to  the  cypress  trees  in  the  Santiago  and  Toulouse 
reliefs  is  furnished  by  a  Byzantine  ivory  triptych  of  the  X  century  at  the  Louvre.  On  the  re¬ 
verse  of  this  (illustrated  by  Schlumberger,  I,  128),  are  represented  unmistakable  cypress  trees 
with  a  vine  wound  around  them.  The  peculiar  trees  at  Santiago  must  be  a  further  convention¬ 
alization  of  a  form  like  this. 

^  Miss  King,  op.  cit.  Ill,  252,  deduces,  from  the  iconography  that  the  Toulouse  St.  James 
must  be  derived  from  the  similar  figure  at  Santiago.  This  conclusion  is  confirmed  by  the  study 
of  the  style  of  the  two  sculptures.  There  must  have  been  a  continual  interchange  of  masters 
between  the  two  ateliers  of  Toulouse  and  Santiago. 

®  See  the  illuminating  publication  by  Gomez-Moreno  who  appears  to  have  been  the  first  to 
perceive  the  relationship  of  Santiago  to  the  rest  of  Europe  in  its  true  light. 


LA  PUERTA  DE  LAS  PLATERIAS 


215 


only  are  the  types,  facial  modelling,  draperies,  hands,  feet  and  hair 
conventions  identical,  but  there  are  the  same  mannerisms  like  the 
horizontal  line  following  down  the  shin  line  and  the  incision  in  the 
bulge  of  the  drapery  folds. 

The  work  of  our  sculptor  at  Santiago  did  not  end  with  the  Luxury. 
The  man  riding  a  monster  inserted  horizontally  above  (Ill.  679)  is  by 
his  hand;  as  are  also  two  of  the  jamb  sculptures,  the  St.  Andrew  of 
the  east  jamb  of  the  west  portal  (Ill.  681)  and  the  woman  with 
crossed  legs  holding  a  lion  of  the  east  jamb  of  the  east  portal  (Ill.  684) 
and  the  boy  holding  a  cock  just  below  her. 

These  unrestored  sculptures  give  an  opportunity  to  judge  of  the 
artistic  stature  of  our  artist.  He  is  surely  of  higher  rank  than  one 
would  suspect  from  St.-Sernin.  He  possesses  vigour  and  power,  and 
attains  a  certain  effect  at  the  expense  of  the  finer  qualities. 

The  woman  holding  the  lion  (Ill.  684)  is  a  strange  subject.  We 
should  be  entirely  embarrassed  for  an  explanation,  were  it  not  that 
the  theme  recurs  in  a  relief  now  in  the  museum  of  Toulouse  and  com¬ 
ing  from  St.-Sernin  (Ill.  322).  Here  are  seen  two  women,  similarly 
seated  with  crossed  legs,  one  holding  in  her  lap  a  lion,  the  other  a 
lamb.  It  is  the  illustration,  as  Lahondes  recognized,  of  a  legend  at¬ 
tributed  to  St.  Augustine,  but  manifestly  of  much  later  date,  accord¬ 
ing  to  which,  in  the  time  of  Julius  Caesar,  strange  prodigies  took 
place  at  Toulouse,  at  Rome  and  at  Jerusalem.  At  Toulouse,  notably, 
two  women  bore  one  a  lion,  the  other  a  lamb,  symbolic  of  the  two 
natures  of  the  coming  Messiah.^  It  is  evident  that  we  have  here  an¬ 
other  attempt  of  the  canons  of  St.-Sernin  to  rival  Santiago.  For  the 
usual  triad  Compostela,  Rome,  Jerusalem,  is  substituted  the  triad 
Toulouse,  Rome,  Jerusalem.  It  was  entirely  natural  that  the  miracle 
should  have  been  commemorated  in  the  sculpture  of  St.-Sernin.  The 
meaning  was  underscored  by  the  inscriptions,  which  have,  however, 
been' so  strangely  misunderstood  —  Signum  leonis.  Signum  arietis. 
Hoc  fuit factum  T{olosae)  tempore  Julii  Cesaris. 

Now  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  this  subject  was  originally 

^  Lahondes,  460. 


2i6  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

created  at  Toulouse,  where  it  was  at  home,  and  copied  at  Santiago, 
where  there  was  no  reason  for  it  to  be  represented.  Hence  several 
important  conclusions.  The  Toulouse  sculptures  of  the  lion  and  the 
ram,  although  of  much  finer  quality  than  those  of  the  south  portal, 
must  be  about  contemporary  with  them ;  and  our  sculptor  of  the 
south  porch  of  Santiago  and  of  the  south  portal  of  St.-Sernin  must 
have  been  at  Toulouse,  and,  presumably,  have  worked  there,  before 
he  copied  at  Santiago  the  productions  of  his  more  gifted  contempo¬ 
rary. 

But  we  are  by  no  means  at  the  end  of  the  complications  !  Did  the 
sculptor  of  the  Toulouse  “  Signs  ”  also  work  at  Santiago  ?  Close  to  his 
manner  are  the  David  (Ill.  687),  the  Creation  of  Adam  (Ill.  686)  and 
the  Sacrifice  of  Abraham  (Ill.  690).  These  works  are  much  finer  than 
the  sculptures  of  the  master  of  the  south  portal  of  St.-Sernin,  or  for 
that  matter  than  anything  in  the  lower  portion  of  the  Puerta  de  las 
Platerias.  On  the  other  hand,  they  seem  a  little  off  from  the  Signs  of 
St.-Sernin,  as  if  an  inferior  artist  had  collaborated.  But  the  frag¬ 
ments  of  the  cycle  of  the  apostles  in  the  spandrels  is  of  the  very  high¬ 
est  quality,  and  obviously  related  to  the  “Signs”  on  the  one  hand, 
and  the  group  of  lower  sculptures  we  have  indicated  at  Santiago  on 
the  other.  The  close  relationship  of  all  these  sculptures  is  undeniable, 
and  so  is  their  superior  excellence.  An  easy  explanation  seems  to  be 
to  suppose  that  they  are  the  work  of  one  gifted  and  highly  versatile 
artist.  Whether  this  sculptor  was  a  native  of  Santiago  or  of  Toulouse 
there  is  nothing  to  indicate.  His  David  (Ill.  687)  sits  under  an  arch 
like  those  of  the  Moissac  cloister  (Ill.  262-273)  ?  but  this  same  motive 
had  long  been  characteristic  of  the  art  of  Spain,  being  found,  for 
example,  in  the  Area  Santa  of  Oviedo  (Ill.  656).  The  motive,  more¬ 
over,  we  have  seen  was  characteristic  of  ivories,  and  our  sculptor  be¬ 
trays  knowledge  of  this  medium.  The  David  (Ill.  687)  recalls  an 
ivory  of  the  same  subject  at  the  Bargello  at  Florence.^  In  the  two 
works,  the  mantle  slung  from  shoulder  to  shoulder  falls  in  the  same 
“U”  curves.  The  type  of  face  is  similar,  in  both  the  eyes  are  curi- 
*  Illustrated  by  Graeven,  II,  23. 


LA  PUERTA  DE  LAS  PLATERIAS 


217 


ously  round,  and  similarly  drawnd  Folds  of  the  drapery  like  those  of 
the  Santiago  David  (Ill.  687)  are  found  in  two  ivories  of  the  X  cen¬ 
tury  of  the  British  Museum.^  The  long  straight  legs  of  the  Adam  in 
the  Santiago  Creation  (Ill.  686)  recall  those  of  the  scenes  of  Genesis 
in  a  Byzantine  ivory  casket  of  the  X-XI  centuries  at  Darmstadt.^ 
This  Adam  also  shows  analogies  with  the  Adam  and  Eve  capital  of 
Cluny ;  our  sculptor  was  perhaps  influenced  by  Burgundian  models 
here  and  in  the  fluttering  draperies  of  the  “Signs.”  He  is  certainly 
an  important  figure  in  the  history  of  art.  Nothing  at  Toulouse 
equals  or  foreshadows  the  superb  Christ  of  the  spandrel  (Ill.  676),  a 
figure  which  was  a  century  ahead  of  its  time,  and  inspired  whole 
cycles  of  later  art.  Among  other  things  which  must  be  set  down  to 
the  credit  of  this  artist  is  the  idea  of  representing  the  Sacrifice  of 
Abraham  with  upright  figures  on  the  jambs  of  the  portal  (Ill.  690)  — 
a  motive  later  taken  over  and  developed  by  the  Gothic  sculptors  of 
Senlis  (Ill.  1508)  and  Chartres. 

It  is  important  to  observe  that  the  master  of  the  south  porch  of 
St.-Sernin  may  have  executed  jamb  sculptures  at  Santiago.  Two  of 
his  works  —  the  St.  Andrew  (Ill.  681)  and  the  Sign  of  the  Lion  (Ill. 
684)  —  are  now  used  as  jamb  figures,  and  jamb  figures  of  the  most 
primitive  type ;  that  is,  reliefs  of  the  inner  jamb,  at  right  angles  to  the 
door.  The  description  makes  it  certain  that  in  the  early  XII  century 
both  the  northern  and  southern  portals  had  jamb  sculptures.  Those 
of  the  north  portal  represented  the  four  apostles,  St.  Peter,  St.  Paul, 
St.  James  and  St.  John ;  all  held  books  in  their  left  hands,  and  their 
right  hands  were  raised  in  benediction.  The  relief  embedded  in  the 
west  buttress  (Ill.  685),  next  to  the  lion,  may  be  one  of  these  apostles. 
In  the  jambs  of  the  south  portal  were  four  other  apostles  whom  the 
Guide  does  not  name  more  specifically ;  it  is  probable  that  St.  Andrew 
may  have  been  among  them,  and  that  the  St.  Andrew  (Ill.  681)  which 
still  exists  is  in  the  original  position. 

^  This  ivory  is  called  a  French  work  of  the  X  century  —  but  is  it  ? 

^  Illustrated  by  Dalton,  PI.  XXIV,  46. 

^  Illustrated  by  Schlumberger,  I,  59. 


21 8  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

The  fact  that  jamb  sculptures,  set  at  right  angles  to  the  door,  were 
found  at  Santiago,  is  significant.  Guglielmo  used  this  same  motive 
at  precisely  this  moment  at  Cremona  (1107-1117);  his  prophets, 
like  the  Santiago  apostles,  are  on  the  inner  face  of  the  jambs,  at 
right  angles  to  the  door.  Did  Guglielmo  copy  from  Santiago  or  the 
Santiagoan  sculptor  from  Guglielmo  ?  Or  both  from  a  common 
original  ? 

The  idea  of  flanking  a  portal  with  full-length  figures  in  relief  is  at 
least  as  old  as  the  Herodn  at  Tyrsa.  In  this,  which  is  probably  the 
most  primitive  form  of  the  motive,  the  statues  are  placed  not  in  the 
jambs  of  the  portal,  but  in  the  wall  beside  it.  In  such  a  form  the 
motive  is  found  at  Elindsche,  near  Garni  in  Armenia.^  This  simple 
version  also  found  its  way  into  the  Occident.  At  La  Couture  of  Le 
Mans  (Ill.  1 41 2)  in  northern  France  there  exists  an  example  very 
crude  in  style,  and  presumably  of  early  date.  We  find  the  motive  in 
southern  France  and  in  Italy,  at  Souillac  (Ill.  343,  344),  Moissac  (Ill. 
360,  361),  Beaulieu  (Ill.  417,  418),  Notre-Dame-du-Port  of  Cler¬ 
mont-Ferrand  (Ill.  1162,  1163),  S.  Maria  Maggiore  of  Toscanella, 
S.  Antonino  of  Piacenza,  S.  Quirico  d’Orcia.  It  probably  also  existed 
at[St.-Michel-de-Cuxa  in  Catalonia  (Ill.  558,  559),  although  the 
fragments  of  the  portal  are  no  longer  in  their  original  position.  The 
only  instance  of  the  motive  that  I  know  in  Spain  is  in  the  com¬ 
paratively  late  work  at  Leire  (Ill.  715).  In  Dalmatia  the  motive 
appears  in  the  portal  at  Trau.  It  is  also  found  at  Zara;  here  we 
have  older  fragments  of  the  XII  century,  incorporated  in  the  portal 
of  1320.  The  reliefs  are  at  present  in  two  rows;  very  possibly  the 
original  arrangement  in  this  particular  may  be  preserved,  for  jamb 
sculptures  in  two  rows,  first  initiated  by  Guglielmo  at  Cremona  were 
frequently  repeated  in  later  monuments.^  Of  the  simple  flanking 
type,  like  those  of  Zara,  examples  are  extant  in  the  Abruzzi  at  S. 
Clemente  de  Casauria  (Ill.  219)  and  in  the  Basilicata  at  Marsico 
Nuovo. 

1  Illustrated  by  Strzygowski,  Arm.,  812  f. 

^  At  Bamberg  in  Germany,  at  Las  Caldas  de  Oviedo  and  San  Julian  de  Moraime  in  Spain. 


LA  PUERTA  DE  LAS  PLATERIAS 


219 


The  second  step  in  the  evolution  of  jamb  sculptures  would  be  to 
transfer  the  relief  which  had  been  placed  in  the  wall  flanking  the  por¬ 
tal,  to  the  face  of  the  jamb,  at  right  angles  to  the  door.  This  form  of 
the  motive  we  find  at  Santiago  and  Cremona.  It  appears  to  have 
been  more  at  home  in  Italy  than  in  Spain,  for  it  survives  in  several 
late  monuments  all  in  Italy  —  the  cathedral  of  Foligno,  the  cathedral 
of  Lodi,  S.  Andrea  of  Barletta  (Ill.  252). 

What  seems  to  be  a  development  of  the  motive  is  found  at  St.- 
Antonin  (Ill.  358,  359)  in  Aquitaine.  The  gallery  of  the  Hotel-de- 
Ville  has  piers  upon  which  are  engaged  sculptures  that  produce  the 
effect  of  adossed  reliefs.  These  may  conceivably  be  inspired  by  the 
jambs  of  Santiago.  The  Adam  of  St.-Antonin  (Ill.  358)  faintly  recalls 
the  xLdam  of  the  Creation  at  Santiago  (Ill.  686).  Stylistically,  how¬ 
ever,  the  work  at  St.-Antonin  shows  the  influence  of  Burgundy  in  the 
draperies,  and  especially  in  the  spirals  of  the  knees.  Its  closest  rela¬ 
tive  is  the  tympanum  at  Moissac  (Ill.  339-342). 

The  third  step  in  the  evolution  of  the  Gothic  portal  was  to  replace 
the  sculptures  of  the  inner  jambs  by  a  series  of  sculptures  on  the  vari¬ 
ous  orders  of  the  portal.  At  first  these  sculptures  were  placed  in 
niches  upon  rectangular  members.  In  this  form  the  motive  is  found 
on  the  portal  of  the  cathedral  of  Ferrara,  sculptured  by  Nicolb  in 
1 135.  It  was  repeated  soon  after  in  the  portal  of  the  chapter-house  of 
St.-Etienne  of  Toulouse  (Ill.  434-443).^  The  sculptures  in  niches  are 
re-echoed  in  Nicolb’s  holy-water  font  at  Chamalieres  (Ill.  1154- 
1156). 

The  fourth  step  was  to  transfer  these  little  figures  in  niches  on  the 
rectangular  members  of  the  portal  to  the  engaged  colonnettes  of  the 
portal,  without  altering  the  size  of  the  sculptures.  This  phase  we  find 
in  Nicolb’s  portal  of  the  cathedral  of  Verona  of  1139.  It  is  echoed  in 
late  monuments  in  widely  separated  regions  —  in  the  strongly  Lom¬ 
bard  fagade  of  the  Schottenkirche  at  Regensburg,  and  in  two 
destroyed  churches  of  Holland  —  the  Johanniskirche  of  Utrecht 


There  was  probably  a  lost  original  from  which  both  these  works  are  derived. 


220  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

(rebuilt  after  a  fire  in  1 148)  and  St.  Odilienberg.^  In  Spain  the  motive 
in  this  form  is  found  only  in  late  monuments  —  at  Montereyp  Las 
Caldas  de  Oviedo  (Ill.  881-882),  Villaviciosa  (Ill.  884,  885)  and  San 
Julian  de  Moraime.^ 

We  must  at  this  point  turn  aside  to  consider  an  alternative  possi¬ 
bility  in  the  development  of  jamb  sculptures.'* 

In  the  portal  of  Santiago  are  incorporated  three  marble  columns 
(Ill.  688,  690,  691)  entirely  covered  with  sculptures  of  figures  stand¬ 
ing  in  arched  niches.  Since  the  description  of  the  XII  century  refers 
to  these  remarkable  productions,  there  is  no  doubt  that  they  be¬ 
longed  to  the  original  construction.  To  cover  a  column  with  arched 
niches  filled  with  reliefs  is  a  Byzantine  idea;  it  occurs  in  the  columns 
of  the  ciborio  of  S.  Marco  at  Venice.®  The  actual  workmanship  at 
Compostela  is  undoubtedly  local;  the  figures  are  of  the  pilgrimage 
style,  and  similar  to  the  other  reliefs  executed  before  1124. 

The  suspicion  arises  that  these  columns  may  have  inspired  the 
much  later  colonnettes  of  the  convent  of  the  Benedictine  nuns  (Ill. 
705-708).  On  each  are  adossed  the  figures  of  three  apostles.®  I  was 
unable  to  obtain  access  to  the  originals  of  these  sculptures,  which  I 
know  only  from  the  casts  in  the  chapter-house  of  the  cathedral. 
Hence  I  have  no  helps  but  the  style  to  establish  the  date.  It  is  evi¬ 
dent  that  they  must  be  much  later  than  the  work  anterior  to  1124  in 
the  Puerta  de  las  Platerias.  The  close  analogy  between  the  heads 
(Ill.  708)  and  that  of  Nicolb’s  Oliver  at  the  cathedral  of  Verona  sug¬ 
gests  that  the  Santiago  colonnettes  are  not  earlier  than  the  fourth  or 
fifth  decade  of  the  XII  century.  On  the  other  hand  they  certainly 

1  The  fragments  of  the  former  are  in  the  Stadischen  Museum  at  Utrecht,  those  of  the  latter 
in  the  Niederlandischen  Museum  at  the  Hague.  Illustrated  by  Litgenberg,  Taf.  V. 

^  Illustrated  by  Fatigati,  i8. 

®  Illustrated  by  Garcia  de  Pruneda,  159. 

*  Something  like  jamb  sculptures  are  found  at  Grossenlinden  in  Germany  and  Millstadt  am 
See  in  Austria.  (Illustrated  by  Hamann  i,  130). 

®  The  motive  was  taken  over  in  the  west  portal  of  Chartres,  probably  from  Santiago.  Illus¬ 
tration  by  Houvet,  ii. 

®  The  handle  of  a  flabellum  of  the  XII  century,  called  southern  French,  in  the  British  Mu¬ 
seum,  has  apostles  coupled  in  niches  in  the  manner  of  the  Santiago  columns.  This  has  been 
illustrated  by  Dalton,  PI.  XXXVI,  76. 


LA  PUERTA  DE  LAS  PLATERIAS 


221 


appear  much  more  primitive  than  the  jamb  sculptures  of  St.-Etienne 
of  Toulouse  (Ill.  434-443). 

There  exist  several  other  examples  of  the  motive  of  three  or  more 
figures  adossed  to  a  column.  The  earliest  is  at  Solsona  in  Catalonia 
(Ill.  551).  From  there  the  motive  was  carried  to  St.-Bertrand-de- 
Comminges  in  the  French  Pyrenees  (Ill.  492).  It  is  also  found  in  a 
fragment  from  Notre-Dame  of  Chalons-sur-Marne  of  unknown  date 
(Ill.  1487)  which  has  found  its  way  to  the  Louvre.^ 

Now  it  is  easy  to  imagine  that  the  three  or  four  figures  engaged 
upon  a  column  of  a  cloister  might  easily  have  been  reduced  to  one. 
And  in  fact  we  find  numerous  examples  of  such  in  nearly  all  parts  of 
Europe.  One  of  the  most  significant  are  the  three  colonnettes  from 
St.-Quentin-les-Beauvais,  now  in  the  Museum  of  Beauvais  (Ill.  143 1- 
1433).  The  style  of  these  figures  is  primitive  —  they  have  every  ap¬ 
pearance  of  being  earlier  than  St.-Denis  (Ill.  1437-1457). 

Similar  sculptured  colonnettes  are  found  in  the  museum  which  has 
been  installed  in  the  archeveche  at  Albi  (Ill.  453-455).  These  are 
said  to  be  fragments  of  a  secular  building,  such  as  the  sculptures  of 
St.-Antonin  (Ill.  358,  359)  still  adorn.  Inscriptions  —  REX  SAUL, 
REX  SALAMON  —  leave  no  doubt  as  to  the  iconographical  mean¬ 
ing  of  two  of  the  figures.  Of  the  other  two,  representing  women,  one 
(Ill.  454)  is  probably  the  Queen  of  Sheba.  The  style  seems  to  show 
derivation  from  many  different  sources.  Draperies  of  Chartres  and 
Beauvais,  postures  from  the  Moissac  porch,  limbs  of  Santiago,  hands 
of  Rieux-Minervois  (Ill.  1404)  are  combined  with  the  manner  of  the 
third  quarter  of  the  XII  century. 

Elsewhere  in  France  we  find  the  motive  in  the  cloisters  of  Aix  (Ill. 
1407,  1408),  and  Ganogobie  (Ill.  1237,  1238).  An  old  drawing  shows 
that  it  formerly  existed  in  the  cloisters  of  St.-Georges-de-Bocherville 
m  Normandy  ^  —  this  is  significant,  as  the  monument  appears  to 
have  dated  from  about  1140.  The  theme  also  formerly  existed  in  the 

^  In  the  museum  of  Calcutta,  India,  is  a  square  pillar,  coming  from  Bharhut,  on  which  are 
adossed  three  figures  in  relief.  (Illustrated  by  L.  A.  Waddell,  in  the  Asiatic  Quarterly  Review^ 
3d  series,  1912,  XXXIII,  104.) 

Nodier,  Tayler  et  de  Cailleux,  II,  PI.  116,  Fig.  2,  9. 


222  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

cloisters  of  Lavaudieu  ^  and  Avignon, ^  the  latter  dating  from  about 
1155. 

Outside  of  France  we  find  sculptures  adossed  to  colonnettes  at 
Chur  in  Switzerland,  and  in  the  fagades  of  the  cathedral  at  Genoa 
and  the  Pieve  at  Arezzo. 

Now  it  is  easy  to  imagine  the  motive  of  a  sculptured  column  like 
those  of  the  museum  at  Beauvais  transferred  from  a  cloister  to  the 
portal  of  a  church.  The  portal  of  St.-Denis  might  have  been  pro¬ 
duced  in  this  way  as  well  as  by  copying  of  the  Italian  portals. 

Between  the  two  genealogies,  —  Cremona,  Ferrara,  destroyed 
monument  like  the  cathedral  of  Verona,  St.-Denis;  and  Santiago 
sculptured  column,  colonnette  of  the  convent  of  Benedictine  nuns, 
Beauvais  colonnettes,  St.-Denis  —  it  is  not  altogether  easy  to  choose. 
The  former,  on  the  whole,  seems  perhaps  somewhat  smoother  and 
more  convincing,  but  gives  no  explanation  of  the  fact  that  sculp¬ 
tured  colonnettes  seem  to  have  existed  before  St.-Denis.  The  truth 
probably  is  that  both  evolutions  took  place,  not  independently,  but 
with  constant  cross-influences. 

When  in  1137  the  abbot  Suger  undertook  the  reconstruction  of 
St.-Denis,  he  faced  a  peculiar  situation,  which  it  is  well  to  bear  in 
mind  in  studying  his  work. 

First  of  all,  Cluny  was  already  discredited.  The  art-loving  order 
was  on  the  wane,  and  the  art-hating  Cistercians  were  waxing  in 
power  and  prosperity.  St.  Bernard’s  strictures  had  killed  the  tender 
art  of  the  early  XII  century.  A  wave  of  puritanical  austerity  swept 
across  Europe.  An  order  which  condemned  sculpture,  which  ban¬ 
ished  stained-glass  and  frescos,  which  reduced  architecture  to  dreary 
and  barn-like  monotony,  became  the  fashion  of  the  hour.  It  was  a 
tide  too  strong  to  be  opposed.  The  downfall  of  Cluny  and  of  Cluniac 
ideals  of  art  became  certain. 

Suger,  a  clever  politician,  was  assuredly  not  unaware  of  the  Cis¬ 
tercian  tide,  nor  could  he  have  failed  to  be  influenced  by  the  current 

^  The  sculptured  column  of  Lavaudieu  has  been  sold. 

^  Illustrated  by  Labande,  PI.  LXXVI. 


LA  PUERTA  DE  LAS  PLATERIAS  223 

running  so  strongly  in  his  time.  And  in  fact  the  element  of  Cistercian 
austerity  was  an  important  one  in  his  achievement,  and  perhaps  its 
chief  defect.  It  must  be  said  in  Suger’s  praise,  however,  that  by 
nature  he  was  little  inclined  to  puritanical  ideals.  His  personal  rela¬ 
tions  with  St.  Bernard  show  him  as  a  temporizing,  but  never  enthusi¬ 
astic,  follower  of  the  great  reformer.  The  Cistercian  movement,  we 
feel,  was  a  force  so  powerful  that  he  dared  not  but  conform  to  it, 
although  his  heart  was  cold.  When  St.  Bernard  praises  Suger’s  be¬ 
haviour,  we  seem  to  read  between  the  lines  that  the  actions  com¬ 
mended  had  been  motived  by  fear  rather  than  by  love. 

We  may  conjecture  that  Suger  felt  notably  that  the  hostility 
towards  art  preached  by  the  Cistercians  was  a  mistake.  His  own 
tastes,  doubtless,  corresponded  much  more  nearly  with  the  Cluniac 
ideal.  He  perhaps  viewed  with  something  like  dismay  a  movement 
which  threatened  to  stamp  out  Romanesque  art.  His  politician’s 
mind  conceived  the  idea  of  producing  a  new  style,  which  should 
preserve  the  loveliness  of  Cluniac  production,  while  at  the  same 
time  satisfying  the  Cistercian  austerity.  Cluniac  art  should,  in 
fact,  by  a  process  of  reform,  be  made  endurable  for  Cistercian  Puri¬ 
tans. 

Suger  was  regent  of  France,  and  St.-Denis  was  the  royal  abbey. 
The  abbot  had  the  interests  of  the  crown  at  heart.  He  was,  more¬ 
over,  a  man  who  had  travelled  wide,  and  seen  many  countries,  no¬ 
tably  Italy.  He  was  aware  of  what  had  been  produced  by  the  archi¬ 
tecture  of  other  lands,  and  surely  perceived  how  far  that  of  his  own 
country  lagged  behind.  It  is  perhaps  not  too  much  to  credit  him 
with  an  understanding  of  the  advantages  a  superior  art  could  bring 
to  the  French  crown.  In  any  event,  whether  by  conscious  reasoning 
or  by  intuition,  what  he  did  was  to  create  a  national  style.  The  polit¬ 
ical  importance  of  this  move  can  hardly  be  over-estimated.  It  was 
an  important  step  in  that  centralizing  policy,  which  became  for  so 
many  centuries  the  aim  of  the  French  kings,  and  which  is  still  a  liv¬ 
ing  factor  in  French  economy.  The  value  of  a  national  and  central¬ 
ized  art,  first  perceived  by  Suger,  was  understood  by  his  followers  in 


224  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

the  French  government  throughout  the  centuries.  It  is  still  part  of 
the  French  government  policy  of  to-day. 

The  problem  of  Suger  was,  therefore,  to  create  an  art  which  should 
be  national,  that  should  be  recognized  as  superior  even  by  foreign 
nations,  thus  gathering  glory  for  the  name  of  France,  that  should 
perpetuate  what  was  great  in  the  art  of  Cluny,  and  that  should  sat¬ 
isfy  the  puritanical  exactions  of  the  Cistercians. 

He  found  native  in  the  Ile-de-France  a  finely  archaic  architecture 
well  suited  for  his  purpose.  His  task  was  to  combine  this  architecture 
with  the  figure  arts  of  the  south,  so  as  to  produce  a  whole  which 
might  be  impregnated  with  theological  and  scholastic  dogma  to  an 
extent  which  would  disarm  the  strictures  of  the  Cistercians,  and  at 
the  same  time  produce  a  compelling  work  of  art. 

Thus  St.-Denis  was  compounded  of  elements  brought  from  many 
sources.  It  combines  the  building  forms  of  the  Ile-de-France  with 
sexpartite  vaults  of  Normandy,  sculptures  of  Aquitaine  and  vous- 
sures  of  Saintonge.  Enamel  workers  were  summoned  from  Ger¬ 
many.  M.  Male  believes  that  even  the  hollow  work  at  Beaulieu  con¬ 
tributed  its  quota.  Whence  the  glass  came,  no  one  knows,  but  it  is 
hardly  likely  that  Suger  invented  the  art.  The  windows  of  St.-Denis 
are  obviously  not  the  first  attempt  of  a  novice,  but  the  production  of 
artists  who  were  working  in  a  medium  with  which  they  were  well 
acquainted.  Suger,  moreover,  expressly  states  that  his  glass-workers 
were  imported.  It  is  also  sure  that  Suger  was  in  touch  with  the  build¬ 
ing  operations  at  Cluny.  He  writes  of  bringing  marble  columns  by 
water  from  Rome  in  evident  imitation  of  what  had  actually  been 
accomplished  in  the  Burgundian  monastery. 

It  is  not  less  certain  that  the  art  of  St.-Denis  was  influenced  by 
Lombardy,  especially  in  its  ornamental  and  decorative  details.  The 
mosaics  were  assuredly  purely  Italian.^  The  sculpture  is  as  little  in¬ 
digenous.  The  style  shows  no  relationship  to  the  crude  earlier  work 

^  Mosaic  pavements  are  found  in  Germany  and  in  several  French  churches,  such  as  Cruas 
and  Thiers,  as  well  as  in  Italy.  Cruas  is  dated  1098.  Thiers  must  be  of  the  XII  century,  al¬ 
though  it  has  been  called  Carolingian.  The  mosaics  of  St.-Denis  differ  from  these  because 
partially  made  of  glass. 


LA  PUERTA  DE  LAS  PLATERIAS 


225 


in  the  Ile-de-France  at  St. -Etienne  of  Beauvais  (Ill.  1423,  1424),  St.- 
Quentin-les-Beauvais  (Ill.  143 1-1433),  Bury.  The  supporting  fig¬ 
ures  of  the  western  portal  are  a  characteristically  Guglielmo-esque 
motive  (Ill.  1438,  1441-1443),  though  derived  perhaps  via  Beaulieu 
(Ill.  416).^  Nothing  could  be  more  completely  Lombard  than  the  lion 
with  his  tail  between  his  legs  supporting  the  colonnette  (Ill.  1443). 
This  colonnette  is  decorated  with  spirals  and  ornaments  in  the  man¬ 
ner  peculiar  to  the  masters  of  the  Isola  S.  Giulio  pulpit  and  S.  Orso 
cloister.  The  reliefs  of  the  zodiac  show  analogies  with  the  sculptures 
of  the  same  subject  at  Modena.  A  capital  of  the  crypt  has  on  its 
abacus  a  completely  Lombardic  anthemion  (Ill.  1436).  The  angels 
in  the  voussures  (Ill.  1440),  heavy  and  expressionless,  are  of  Lom¬ 
bardic  rather  than  of  Aquitanian  type.  The  figures  of  the  virgins  in 
arches  surmounted  by  tabernacles  (Ill.  1441,  1442)  recall  Guglielmo’s 
prophets  at  Modena.  The  peasant  quality  of  the  broad,  squat  figures 
is  also  reminiscent  of  Guglielmo. 

It  is  therefore  entirely  within  the  bounds  of  possibility  that  the 
jamb  sculptures  of  St. -Denis  came  from  Lombardy.  On  the  other 
hand,  it  is  certain  that  St.-Denis  was  much  influenced  by  pilgrimage 
art.  It  was  itself  a  pilgrimage  church,  part  of  the  chain  which 
stretched  from  Santiago  to  the  remote  ends  of  Europe.  It  is  certain 
that  the  sculptor  whom  we  call  the  St.-Denis  Master  owes  important 
peculiarities  of  his  style  to  the  West  and  South. 

Before  leaving  the  subject  of  jamb  sculptures,  a  word  should  be 
said  of  the  holy-water  basin  at  Chamalieres  (Ill.  1153-1156).  This 
has  four  adossed  figures  in  niches,  like  the  jamb  sculptures  of  the 
cathedral  of  Ferrara  and  of  the  chapter-house  of  St.-Etienne  of  Tou¬ 
louse  (Ill.  434-443).  It  is  evident,  however,  that  the  Chamalieres 
basin,  is  related  to  Nicolb’s  work  at  Ferrara  much  more  closely  than 
to  the  Toulouse  apostles.  In  fact,  the  Chamalieres  basin  appears  to 
be  a  work  by  Nicolb’s  own  hand,  and  dating  from  his  Ferrarese 
period.  The  style  is  far  more  suave  and  developed  than  in  his  earlier 
productions  at  Piacenza.  On  the  other  hand  it  seems  less  mannered 

^  The  Bury  figures  beneath  the  vault  show  the  same  influence. 


226  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

than  the  jamb  sculptures  of  the  cathedral  of  Verona.  The  peculiar 
braided  ornament  on  the  border  of  the  drapery  of  one  of  the  figures 
of  the  Chamalieres  basin  recurs  on  the  St.  John  the  Baptist  in  the 
spandrels  of  S.  Zeno  at  Verona.  It  is,  however,  with  Nicolb’s  work 
at  Ferrara  that  the  Chamalieres  basin  shows  the  closest  analogies.. 
There  are  the  same  draperies,  the  same  hands,  the  same  eyes,  the 
same  beards,  the  same  noses,  the  same  lips,  the  same  scrolls,  the  same 
niches,  the  same  hair.  Indeed,  the  basin  at  Chamalieres  resembles  the 
jambs  of  Ferrara  much  more  closely  than  do  Nicolb’s  signed  works  at 
Sagra  S.  Michele  and  Verona.  It  seems,  therefore,  impossible  to 
doubt  that  it  is  by  his  hand. 

The  question  arises  how  this  work  found  its  way  into  the  heart  of 
the  Cevennes.  Did  Nicolb  undertake  a  journey  into  the  Velay  ? 
There  is  plenty  of  evidence  to  show  that  he  did  travel  in  France,  al¬ 
though  rather  in  the  South-west,  in  Languedoc  and  Aquitaine.  It 
seems  to  me,  however,  more  probable  that  the  basin  was  exported 
from  Italy,  and  carried  to  Chamalieres.  It  will  doubtless  be  objected 
that  the  basin  is  an  exceedingly  heavy  object  to  have  been  trans¬ 
ported  in  this  manner.  Yet  we  know  that  far  more  complicated  ship¬ 
ments  were  made  in  the  XII  century.  The  great  ambulatory  columns 
of  Cluny,  for  example,  the  transportation  of  which  would  be  some¬ 
thing  of  a  problem  at  the  present  day,  and  in  comparison  with  which 
the  Chamalieres  basin  seems  a  trifle,  were  brought  all  the  way  from 
Rome  to  Burgundy.  The  transportation  of  the  Chamalieres  basin 
would  have  been  comparatively  easy,  because  it  could  have  been  sent 
most  of  the  way  by  water,  across  the  sea,  and  up  the  Rhone. 

But  the  fortunes  of  the  motive  of  jamb  sculptures  have  led  us  far 
away  from  Santiago.  Returning  thither  we  notice  that  the  sculp¬ 
tured  columns  of  the  Puerta  de  las  Platerias  are  by  no  means  the 
only  traces  of  Byzantine  influence.  One  suspects  it,  indeed,  of  under¬ 
lying  much  of  the  work,  and  if  we  knew  more  of  Byzantine  sculpture, 
it  is  likely  that  we  could  detect  definite  traces.  One  fragment  is,  in¬ 
deed,  certainly  Byzantine.  It  is  that  strange  bust  (Ill.  676)  inserted 
in  the  spandrel  between  the  two  doorways,  and  which  the  Guide 


LA  PUERTA  DE  LAS  PLATERIAS 


227 


shows  to  have  originally  belonged  to  the  Transfiguration  of  the  west 
fagade.  The  Byzantine  foliage  in  the  boss  betrays  the  origin  of  the 
sculptor.  But  this  is  not  all.  A  head  of  similar  character  is  found  in  a 
relief  of  S.  Marco  at  Venice  representing  the  sacrifice  of  Isaac. ^ 

There  is  a  head  resembling  the  one  at  Santiago  (Ill.  676)  in  the 
portal  of  Santillana  del  Mar  (Ill.  860).  The  other  sculptures  of  this 
fagade  are  of  far  inferior  quality. 

In  the  relief  of  the  Temptation  in  the  western  tympanum  of  the 
Puerta  de  las  Platerias  is  introduced  the  trilobed  arch,  destined  to  be¬ 
come  important  in  northern  art.  The  motive  is  found  in  a  Carlovin- 
gian  miniature  of  the  Gospels  of  Soissons,  in  what  would  seem  the 
more  advanced  polylobed  form ;  ^  it  also  occurs  in  the  trilobed  form 
in  an  Anglo-Saxon  manuscript  of  the  IX  century,^  and  there  is  some¬ 
thing  very  like  it  in  the  scene  of  the  Adoration  of  the  Magi  ^  of  the 
Hildesheim  doors.  The  popularity  of  the  motive,  however,  especially 
in  architecture  seems  to  have  been  established  by  Spain.  It  is  found 
in  Mohammedan  architecture  from  the  IX  century,®  coming  accord¬ 
ing  to  Rivoira  from  India,®  and  in  the  X  century  it  is  already  accli¬ 
mated  in  the  mosque  of  Cordoba.  It  occurs  in  the  Area  de  San 
Felices  (Ill.  661)  in  a  form  very  similar  to  that  of  the  Puerta  de  las 
Platerias.  At  Santiago  it  is  used  not  only  in  the  relief,  but  architec¬ 
turally  as  well.  Its  diffusion  thence  in  architecture  we  have  already 
noticed.^  In  the  plastic  arts  we  find  it  reproduced  in  a  miniature  rep¬ 
resenting  the  Feast  at  Emmaus  in  a  Limoges  manuscript  of  the  XII 

1  This  relief  has  been  variously  assigned  from  the  III  to  the  XIII  century.  It  is,  however, 
certainly  of  the  early  XII  century.  This  may  be  proved  by  comparing  it  with  the  relief  of 
Hercules  and  the  Ceryneian  deer  of  the  same  basilica.  The  latter  is  a  Venetian  copy  of  a  Byzan¬ 
tine  work,  not  earlier  than  the  XII  century.  It  is  evident  that  the  heads  in  the  two  works  have 
the  same  character.  Probably  much  Byzantine  sculpture  dates  from  the  XI-XII  centuries. 
The  relief  at  Xeropotamon  (Mt.  Athos)  reproduced  by  Brockhaus  Taf.  9  reproduces  line  for 
line  an  ivory  of  the  XI  century  in  the  museum  of  Berlin  (illustrated  by  Schlumberger,  II,  89). 

That'  the  S.  Marco  Sacrifice  of  Isaac  is  Byzantine,  seems  to  me  certain.  It  has  nothing  to  do 
with  contemporary  work  in  Italy.  Was  it  imported  from  Constantinople  in  1204,  like  so  many 
other  marbles  of  S.  Marco,  or  was  it  executed  in  situ  by  a  wandering  Byzantine  sculptor  ? 

^  Paris,  Bibl.  Nat.  lat.  8850,  illustrated  by  Boinet,  PL  XXL 

^  Lord  of  Leicester’s  Library,  illustrated  by  Dorez,  Catalogue,  PI.  III.  Cf.  a  miniature  in  the 
Gebhards-Bibel  at  Admont,  illustrated  by  Buberl,  25. 

^  Illustrated  by  Dibelius,  Taf.  8.  ®  Puig,  III,  385. 

®  y^rch.  Mus.,  374.  ’  See  above,  p.  1 87. 


228  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

century  in  the  Morgan  Library  ^  and  in  the  altar-piece  of  the  abbey 
of  Stavelot  in  Belgium,  known  from  a  drawing  reproduced  by  Hel- 
big,2  and  dating  from  soon  after  1130. 

One  of  the  most  interesting  of  the  artists  who  worked  at  Santiago 
is  the  master  who  executed  the  three  figures,  probably  of  apostles,  at 
the  left-hand  edge  of  the  upper  row  (Ill.  675),  the  Expulsion  just  be¬ 
low  (Ill.  675),  the  relief  representing  God  reproving  Adam  and  Eve 
now  in  the  museum  at  Santiago  (Ill.  693),  the  angels  blowing  trump¬ 
ets  (Ill.  675-677),  the  lions  (Ill.  674),  four  figures  at  the  right-hand 
edge  of  the  lower  row  (Ill.  677),  the  figure  just  above  the  Sacrifice  of 
Abraham  in  the  east  buttress  (Ill.  688),  the  Healing  of  the  Blind 
(Ill.  680),^  the  Adoration  of  the  Magi  (Ill.  680)  ®  and  the  Betrayal  of 
the  eastern  tympanum  (Ill.  680).  Since  the  Expulsion  is  mentioned 
in  the  description  of  the  XII  century,  our  master  worked  upon  the 
original  construction. 

This  artist  shows  close  relationship  to  some  of  the  work  at  Conques. 
If  we  compare  the  draperies  of  Christ  and  Judas  in  the  Santiagoan 
Betrayal  (Ill.  680)  with  those  of  the  prophets  in  the  niche  to  the  left 
of  the  Abraham  at  Conques  (Ill.  397) ;  the  head  of  Christ  in  the  San¬ 
tiagoan  Betrayal  (Ill.  680)  with  the  head  of  the  second  prophet  in  the 
niche  to  the  left  of  Abraham  at  Conques  (Ill.  397) ;  the  rosettes  in  the 
cornice  at  Santiago  (Ill.  677)  with  the  stars  inside  the  aureole  of 
Conques  (Ill.  393) ;  the  angels  blowing  trumpets  at  Santiago  (Ill. 
675-677)  with  the  angels  of  Conques  (Ill.  394),  we  shall  be  convinced 
that  the  two  groups  are  related.  Conques  seems  distinctly  more 
naturalistic  and  advanced  in  style  than  Santiago. 

Another  sculptor  at  Santiago  shows  even  closer  analogies  with  a 
second  sculptor  at  Conques.  This  is  the  artist  who  executed  at  Com¬ 
postela  the  Flagellation  (Ill.  680)  and  the  Crowning  with  Thorns 
(Ill.  680)  in  the  centre  of  the  lower  register  of  the  east  tympanum ; 
the  Adoration  of  the  Magi  (Ill.  680)  just  above  the  neighbouring 
grotesque  (Ill.  680)  an  angel  carrying  a  crown  near  by  (Ill.  680) ;  ^ 

1  No.  loi.  ^  56. 

^  In  these  works,  I  suspect,  another  sculptor  collaborated. 

*  In  these  works  his  companion  seems  to  me  to  have  collaborated. 


LA  PUERTA  DE  LAS  PLATERIAS 


229 

the  Temptation  of  the  western  tympanum  (III.  678,  679)  ;  and  the 
west  jamb  figure  of  either  portal  representing  Moses  with  the  tablets 
of  the  law  (Ill.  682)  and  a  bishop  (Ill.  683).  A  curious  convention  for 
representing  the  lower  edge  of  the  draperies  with  redoubled  folds  is 
like  the  signature  of  this  artist.  Now  precisely  this  same  convention 
recurs  at  Conques  in  the  group  of  figures  to  the  left  of  Christ  (Ill. 
395,  396).  The  similarities  do  not  end  here.  The  figures  in  the  two 
monuments  are  of  the  same  stocky  types.  The  head  of  the  Christ 
in  the  Flagellation  at  Santiago  (Ill.  680)  is  like  the  head  of  the  king 
at  Conques  (Ill.  395).  The  short  skirts  of  the  executioner  at  San¬ 
tiago  are  like  those  of  the  same  figure  at  Conques  (compare  Ill.  680 
with  Ill.  395).  The  square  hair  line  is  characteristic  of  both  works. 
The  draperies  of  the  Moses  at  Santiago  (Ill.  682)  are  entirely  similar 
to  those  of  the  abbot  leading  the  king  (Ill.  395)  at  Conques. 

The  figures  in  both  works  wear  the  same  block  shoes.  The  face  of 
the  abbot  at  Conques  (Ill.  396)  is  the  same  as  the  face  of  the  execu¬ 
tioner  to  the  left  at  Santiago  (Ill.  680).  The  attitude  of  the  angel 
Gabriel  in  the  Annunciation  of  the  transept  at  Conques  (Ill.  386)  is 
taken,  line  for  line,  partly  from  the  Christ,  partly  from  the  angel  in 
the  Temptation  of  the  Santiago  tympanum  (Ill.  678).  The  face  of 
the  Virgin  in  the  same  relief  at  Conques  (Ill.  386)  is  the  face  of  the 
angel  swinging  a  censor  in  the  same  relief  of  Santiago  (Ill.  678).  The 
lower  fringe  of  the  drapery  of  the  handmaiden  in  the  Conques  An¬ 
nunciation  is  the  same  as  that  of  the  Christ  at  Santiago  (Ill.  678). 
That  the  two  groups  are  by  the  same  hand  seems  certain.  Again, 
however,  we  note  that  the  sculptures  of  Conques  are  more  advanced. 

The  Betrayal  by  the  first  master  of  Santiago  must  have  formed 
part  of  the  same  series  of  reliefs  with  the  Crowning  with  Thorns  and 
Flagellation  by  the  second.  Therefore  the  two  worked  together  at 
Santiago.  We  are  justified  in  concluding  that  the  same  pair  worked 
together  also  at  Conques. 

The  question  of  the  origin  of  these  sculptors  is  an  interesting  prob¬ 
lem.  I  can  see  no  reason  to  doubt  that  the  one  who  executed  the 
Flagellation  at  Santiago  is  Spanish.  The  work  at  Conques  is  evi- 


230  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

dently  more  advanced  than  that  at  Compostela.  It  is,  moreover,  as 
evidently  of  Spanish  character.  The  brilliant  polychromy  suggests  a 
Spanish  origin  ;  it  is,  perhaps,  by  way  of  Conques  that  the  tradition 
reached  Auvergne.  The  facial  types  are  thoroughly  Spanish;  they 
already  foreshadow  those  of  Mateo.  The  devils,  too,  are  of  Spanish 
type,  and  not  unlike  those  of  the  western  tympanum  of  Santiago. 
Moreover,  the  manner  of  this  sculptor  is  very  close  to  the  Bible  of 
Avila,  a  XII  century  manuscript  of  Spanish  origin  in  the  Madrid 
Library.^  The  only  analogies  with  his  work  outside  of  Spain  that  I 
know  are  not  more  than  might  easily  have  come  to  him  second-hand. 
Thus  his  characteristic  folds  are  somewhat  like  those  of  the  bronze 
tomb-stone  of  Rudolf  von  Schwaben,  a  monument  of  the  Dom  at 
Mersburg,  dating  from  soon  after  loSo.^  They  also  resemble  those 
of  an  ivory-carving  of  the  South  Kensington  Museum,  called  Italian 
of  the  XI-XII  centuries.®  But  his  personality  at  bottom  is,  so  far  as 
I  know,  unlike  anything  outside  of  Spain. 

The  case  is  different  with  the  other  sculptor  whom  we  may  call  the 
Master  of  the  Santiago  Betrayal.  There  is  a  close  prototype  to  his 
style  at  Conques  itself.  The  tomb  of  the  abbot  Begon  III  in  the  ex¬ 
terior  of  the  south  wall  of  the  nave  does  not  seem  to  have  attracted 
the  attention  of  archaeologists  to  the  extent  it  deserves.  This  tomb 
is  adorned  with  a  relief  (Ill.  387)  which  represents  Christ,  two  angels 
and  Ste.  Foy  (she  is  the  figure  to  the  right  —  her  crown  is  the  same 
peculiar  one  that  appears  in  the  golden  image  — )  receiving  into 
paradise  the  dead  abbot.  Since  this  tomb  was  presumably  erected 
soon  after  the  death  of  the  abbot,  it  may  be  considered  a  dated  monu¬ 
ment  of  1 107. 

Now  the  style  of  this  relief  shows  singular  points  of  contact  with 
that  of  the  Betrayal  Master.  Compare,  for  example,  the  face  of  the 
Christ  (Ill.  387)  with  that  of  the  Christ  in  the  Santiago  Betrayal 
(Ill.  680).  There  are  the  same  eyes,  the  same  type  of  face.  The  face 

*  Illustrated  in  the  Boletin  de  la  Sociedad  Espanola  de  Excursiones,  Ano  V,  1897,  loo- 

^  Illustrated  by  Dehio,  abb.  420. 

^  Illustrated  by  Graeven,  57. 


LA  PUERTA  DE  LAS  PLATERIAS 


231 


of  Ste.  Foy  is  like  that  of  the  figure  to  the  right  in  the  Betrayal.  The 
hair  of  the  angels  in  the  Conques  relief  (Ill.  387)  is  like  the  hair  of 
Christ  at  Santiago  (Ill.  680).  The  draperies  of  the  right  shoulder  of 
Christ  at  Conques  (Ill.  387)  are  the  same  as  those  of  the  right  shoul¬ 
der  of  Judas  at  Santiago  (Ill.  680).  The  bottom  folds  of  the  draperies 
at  Conques  have  something  of  the  character  with  which  we  are  al¬ 
ready  familiar  in  the  draperies  of  the  Betrayal  Master  at  Santiago. 
On  the  other  hand  the  tomb  of  Begon  is  distinctly  cruder,  distinctly 
earlier.  The  work  at  Santiago  shows  the  strong  influence  of  the  sculp¬ 
tor  of  the  south  portal  of  St.-Sernin,  which  is  lacking  at  Conques. 

Let  us  now  extend  our  study  to  the  angels  in  the  pendentives  of 
Conques  (Ill.  388,  389).  Compared  with  the  tomb  of  Begon  III  (III. 
387),  the  Conques  angels  appear  much  superior  (Ill.  388,  389).  The 
draperies  are  more  coherent  and  better  rendered ;  they  tend  already 
to  approach  the  Santiagoan  type ;  the  proportions  are  better  and 
more  slender.  The  facial  types,  however,  are  the  same  and  the  dra¬ 
peries  fundamentally  alike.  It  is  evident  that  the  angels  represent  the 
tomb  of  Begon  plus  an  immense  improvement  brought  about  by  the 
influence  of  Santiago.  The  angels  are,  however,  still  far  from  equal¬ 
ling  the  work  of  the  Betrayal  Master  at  Santiago  (Ill.  680).  Were  we 
placing  these  reliefs  in  order,  we  should  certainly  arrange  them : 
tomb  of  Begon,  angels  of  Conques  pendentives.  Betrayal  Master  at 
Santiago,  Betrayal  Master  at  Conques. 

The  sculptures  of  the  transepts  (Ill.  390,391)  are  assuredly  more 
advanced  than  the  angels  of  the  pendentives  (Ill.  388,  389).  The  in¬ 
fluence  of  Santiago  is  stronger.  The  folds  of  the  mantle  of  Isaiah  (Ill. 
391)  are  a  debased  copy  of  the  much  finer  ones  of  the  mantle  of  David 
at  Compostela  (Ill.  687).  The  facial  types  are,  however,  those  of  the 
tomb  of  Begon  (Ill.  387)  and  of  the  angels  of  the  pendentives  (Ill. 
388,  389).  We  are  still  less  advanced  than  the  work  of  the  Betrayal 
Master  at  Santiago.  Our  series  must  be  extended :  tomb  of  Begon, 
angels  of  Conques  pendentives,  transept  sculptures.  Betrayal  Master 
at  Santiago,  Betrayal  Master  in  the  western  tympanum  of  Conques. 

I  confess  that  between  the  tomb  of  Begon  and  the  western  tym- 


232  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

panum  of  Conques  there  seems  to  be  a  difference  not  only  of  style, 
but  of  quality,  that  makes  it  difficult  to  believe  that  all  these  works 
can  be  by  the  same  hand.  They  would,  however,  have  fallen  within 
a  single  lifetime ;  and  if  we  suppose  two  hands,  it  is  very  difficult  to 
say  where  one  stops  and  the  other  begins.  What  seems  certain  is  this. 
There  existed  at  Conques  from  the  beginning  of  the  XII  century  an 
atelier  of  sculpture,  which  from  crudity  rapidly  rose  to  great  excel¬ 
lence  under  the  influence  of  Santiago ;  and  this  atelier  culminated  in 
the  production  of  the  western  tympanum  of  Conques  (Ill.  392-401), 
the  work  of  two  masters,  both  of  whom  had  worked  at  Santiago,  one 
of  whom  was  perhaps  Spanish  by  birth,  but  the  other  of  whom  came 
out  of  the  native  atelier  of  Conques. 

It  is  evident  that  orthodox  archaeology  has  made  a  serious  error 
in  ascribing  the  tympanum  of  Conques  to  the  end  of  the  XII  or  to  the 
XIII  century.  The  style  is  entirely  that  of  the  second  quarter  of  the 
XII  century.  The  faces  (Ill.  393-401)  are  analogous  to  those  of 
Vezelay  (Ill.  28-46)  —  1 104-1120.  Certain  figures,  like  the  one  with 
the  cane,  the  third  to  the  left  of  Christ  (Ill.  396),  show  points  of  con¬ 
tact  with  the  pulpit  of  Isola  S.  Giulio,  which  dates  from  c.  11 20.^  The 
star-bedecked  aureole,  and  other  peculiarities  as  well,  recall  the  Sal¬ 
erno  altar-frontal  which  dates  from  the  last  quarter  of  the  XI  cen¬ 
tury.  The  conspicuous  position  given  to  the  cross  in  the  composition 
of  the  tympanum  at  Conques  (Ill.  392)  shows  that  the  work  is  not 
later  than  the  middle  of  the  XII  century.  It  was  in  the  XI  century 
that  the  cross  became  a  prominent  feature  of  Last  Judgments.  It  is 
inconspicuous  in  the  early  XI  century  at  Oberzell  in  Reichenau,  but 
it  is  central  in  the  late  XI  century  at'Burgfelden.^  In  the  Perikopen- 
buch  of  Kaiser  Heinrich  II,  the  cross  already  holds  a  prominent  place 
in  the  composition  of  the  Last  Judgment.^  In  sculpture  of  the  first 
half  of  the  XII  century,  the  cross  is  prominent ;  it  dominates  the  com- 

^  Noak,  in  the  Dritten  Bericht  uber  die  Denkmdler  Deutscher  Kunst,  43,  notes  analogies  be¬ 
tween  the  pulpit  at  Isola  and  the  east  choir  at  Mainz.  The  latter  he  dates  1 125  cn  independent 
grounds.  It  is  reassuring  that  his  chronology,  arrived  at  by  entirely  other  ways,  should  agree 
to  within  a  year  with  mine. 

^  Dehio,  abb.  360,  361.  ^  Ed.  Leidinger,  V,  38. 


LA  PUERTA  DE  LAS  PLATERIAS 


233 


position  at  Beaulieu  (Ill.  409)  and  at  St.-Denis  (Ill.  1439).  It  was 
first  dropped  at  Autun  (Ill.  80).  After  St.-Denis  (1140)  it  no  longer 
is  conspicuous.  In  this  particular,  therefore,  Conques  shows  the 
manner  of  the  third  or  fourth  decade  of  the  XII  century.  The 
iconography  of  the  tympanum  is, moreover, in  other  respects  archaic. 
Christ  does  not  show  his  wounds  as  at  St.-Denis  (Ill.  1439)  and  in 
later  works.  The  Gothic  formula  has  not  yet  been  found — the  com¬ 
position  is  arranged  in  a  fashion  that  foreshadows  the  final  solution, 
but  which  is  evidently  earlier  and  tentative. ^ 

The  evidence  of  the  iconography  is  confirmed  by  that  of  the  style. 
Since  sculptors  who  worked  at  Santiago  before  1124,  and  presum¬ 
ably  considerably  before,  executed  the  tympanum  of  Conques,  it  is 
evident  that  the  latter  must  certainly  fall  within  the  first  half  of  the 
XII  century.  Is  it  possible  to  determine  the  date  more  exactly  ? 

The  tomb  of  Begon  furnishes  a  sort  of  speedometre  by  which  we 
can  measure  the  rate  of  progress  in  the  atelier  of  Conques.  We  can 
compare  the  state  of  sculpture  in  1 107  as  witnessed  in  this  monument 
(Ill.  387)  with  that  attained  by  the  Betrayal  Master  at  Santiago  (Ill. 
680)  before  1124.  If  so  much  water  had  flowed  under  the  bridges  in 
seventeen  years  or  less,  we  can  hardly  assume  that  more  than  ten 
years  separated  the  Puerta  de  las  Platerias  (Ill.  674-691)  from  the 
western  tympanum  at  Conques  (Ill.  392-401).  That  would  bring  us 
to  1134  at  latest  for  the  date  of  the  latter. 

This  agrees  well  with  what  we  can  deduce  of  the  history  of  the 
building  of  the  basilica  at  Conques.  We  know  from  the  epitaph  of 
Begon  III,  who  as  we  have  seen  died  in  1 107,  that  he  constructed  the 
cloister,  in  the  north  gallery  of  which  he  was  buried.  His  epitaph 
says  nothing  of  his  having  reconstructed  the  church ;  evidently  then 
the  church  had  not  been  begun  at  the  time  of  his  death. 

It  must,  however,  have  been  commenced  very  soon  afterwards. 
There  are  many  proofs  that  the  existing  church  is  later  than  the 
cloister.  The  masonry  of  the  south  transept  reveals  that  the  church 

1  There  are  striking  similarities  between  the  inscriptions  at  Conques  and  those  at  St.-Denis. 
Tt  is  a  question,  however,  how  far  either  are  to  be  trusted. 


234  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

was  built  around  the  previously  existing  cloister.  The  earliest  capi¬ 
tals  of  the  church  —  those  of  the  east  end  —  are  evidently  later  in 
style  (but  only  slightly  later)  than  those  which  still  survive  of  the 
cloister.^  The  angels  of  the  pendentives  (Ill.  388,  389),  falling  mid¬ 
way  in  style  between  the  tomb  of  Begon  of  1107  (Ill.  387)  and  the 
Puerta  de  las  Platerias  (Ill.  674-691),  can  hardly  be  later  than  1115. 
The  choir  must  already  have  been  in  construction  at  this  time. 
Fifteen  years  later  the  western  facade  might  well  have  been  building. 
Everything,  therefore,  indicates  that  the  tympanum  was  executed 
between  1130  and  1135,  contemporaneously  with  the  other  great 
tympana  of  Autun  (Ill.  80),  Vezelay  (Ill.  47)  and  Beaulieu  (Ill. 
409). 

Ste.-Foy  of  Conques,  inspired  by  Santiago,  seems  on  the  other 
hand  to  have  been  the  point  of  departure  for  the  Romanesque  school 
of  Auvergne.  The  latter  appears  to  have  been  formed  at  Notre- 
Dame-du-Port  of  Clermont-Ferrand,  an  edifice  later  than  c.  1140.^ 
The  crudity  of  many  works  in  this  remote  and  mountainous  region 

^  The  enfeu  of  Begon  III  seems  to  have  been  established  in  its  present  form  after  the  re¬ 
construction  of  the  church,  but  of  the  fragments  of  the  original  tomb. 

^  There  is  indeed  a  text  which  proves  that  work  was  still  in  progress  upon  the  church  as  late 
as  1185  (Michel,  I,  2,  605).  The  sculptured  capital  of  the  southern  side  aisle  representing  the 
Temptation  (Ill.  1 1 84)  shows  a  style  notably  later  than  that  of  either  the  ambulatory  capitals 
(Ill.  1167-1 183)  or  the  sculptures  of  the  portal  (Ill.  1158-1163).  If  the  church  was  begun  about 
1145  with  the  east  end  (as  usual  the  sculptures  for  the  ambulatory  capitals  and  the  portal 
would  have  been  the  first  things  executed),  it  is  easily  conceivable  that  the  nave  might  not  have 
been  entirely  finished  forty  years  later.  It  has  been  supposed  that  the  finer  sculptures  of 
the  lintel  are  of  a  later  period  than  the  capitals  of  the  ambulatory,  and  the  former  have  been 
associated  with  the  document  of  1185.  It  is  true  that  two  very  different  hands  maybe  dis¬ 
tinguished  in  the  portal  at  Notre-Dame-du-Port.  Robert,  who  comes  out  of  the  atelier  of  Con¬ 
ques,  executed  all  the  capitals  of  the  ambulatory  (Ill.  1167-1183),  that  of  the  exterior  of  the 
south  transept  representing  the  Sacrifice  of  Abraham  (Ill.  1165),  the  St.  John  (Ill.  1163)  and  the 
Isaiah  (Ill.  1162)  of  the  portal,  and  the  reliefs  of  the  Annunciation  (Ill.  1164)  and  Nativity 
(Ill.  1166)  above.  The  second  hand,  which  as  we  shall  see  comes  out  of  Souvigny,  executed  the 
lintel  (Ill.  1158,  II 59)  and  tympanum  (Ill.  1160,  1 161).  Now  it  is  impossible  to  put  thirty-five 
years  between  the  work  of  these  two  masters.  They  certainly  were  active  at  Notre-Dame-du- 
Port  at  the  same  time.  The  analogies  of  the  second  master  to  Souvigny  show  that  he  worked 
in  the  fifth  or  sixth  decade  of  the  XII  century,  which  is  precisely  the  time  to  which  the  work  of 
the  first  master  must  also  be  ascribed.  More  than  this  the  two  masters  evidently  co-operated 
upon  the  south  portal,  since  the  hands  of  both  can  there  be  found.  Finally  the  Isaiah  of  Robert 
(Ill.  1162)  shows  copying  of  the  style  of  the  second  master.  The  folds  of  the  draperies  over  his 
left  knee  (Ill.  1162)  obviously  reproduce  those  over  the  left  knee  of  the  Christ  in  the  tympanum 
(Ill.  1158).  Both  sculptors  are  therefore  contemporary,  and  were  active  upon  the  church  about 
1145-1150. 


LA  PUERTA  DE  LAS  PLATERIAS 


235 


handicapped  by  rough  and  unworkable  building  materials  has  led  to 
their  being  generally  considered  older  than  they  probably  are  in  fact. 

At  any  event  there  can  be  no  question  of  the  great  debt  which 
Notre-Dame-du-Port  owes  to  Conques.  We  have  only  to  compare 
the  Sl  John  of  Conques  (Ill.  390)  with  the  St.  John  of  Notre-Dame- 
du-Port  (Ill.  1163),  or  the  Isaiah  of  Notre-Dame  (Ill.  1162)  with  the 
angel  in  the  pendentives  at  Conques  (Ill.  388,  389),  or  the  long  scroll 
of  the  Isaiah  of  Conques  (Ill.  391)  with  those  of  the  capitals  at  Cler¬ 
mont  (Ill.  1179)  to  be  convinced  of  the  fact.  But  Notre-Dame  is 
clearly  a  later  and  inferior  copy.  Compare  the  face  of  the  Conques 
St.  John  (Ill.  1163)  with  the  Clermont  rendering  of  the  same  subject 
(Ill.  390).  How  the  fine  spirituality  of  the  Conques  face  has  vanished 
in  the  Clermont  version,  and  there  remains  an  unmeaning  expression 
of  tricky  slyness.  The  Clermont  sculptor  has  been  able  to  imitate 
very  exactly  the  strands  of  the  hair,  the  folds  of  the  drapery ;  but  he 
has  been  powerless  to  give  his  figure  the  dignity  of  pose,  the  expres¬ 
sive  significance  of  the  Conques  prototype.  It  is  in  vain  that  he  has 
covered  every  inch  of  the  surface  with  fussy  ornament.  The  effect  of 
austerity  and  dignity  which  the  Conques  master  attained  by  this 
means  entirely  slips  through  his  fingers.  Similarly  when  we  compare 
the  Isaiah  of  Clermont  (Ill.  1162)  with  the  angel  of  Conques  (Ill.  388) 
we  are  at  once  conscious,  for  all  the  similarities  of  posture  and  of 
detail,  how  much  more  significant  the  figure  at  Conques  is.  The 
raised  right  hand  of  the  Conques  angel  (Ill.  388)  convinces  us, 
whereas  that  of  the  Clermont  Isaiah  seems  futile  (Ill.  1162).  The 
resemblance  of  the  draperies  is  patent,  although  the  Clermont  sculp¬ 
tor  has  evidently  attempted  to  introduce  certain  new  improvements ; 
but  how  much  better  contained  is  the  Conques  figure,  how  much 
firmer  the  outlines. 

It  was  not  only  to  Conques  that  the  sculptors  of  Notre-Dame  went 
to  seek  models.  The  lintel  (Ill.  1 160,  1 161)  is  a  close  imitation  of  the 
screen  at  Souvigny  (Ill.  124,  125).  The  draperies  of  the  Virgin  in  the 
Clermont  Adoration  (Ill.  1160),  for  example,  are  clearly  thence  de¬ 
rived.  The  folds  of  the  upper  part  of  her  garment  (Ill.  1160)  repro- 


236  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

duce  line  for  line  those  in  the  corresponding  position  of  the  Christ  at 
Souvigny  (Ill.  125) ;  those  of  her  skirts  recall  the  figure  to  the  left  of 
the  Souvigny  Christ  (the  extreme  figure  to  the  left  in  Ill.  125).  The 
draperies  about  the  knees  of  Christ  in  the  Clermont  tympanum  (Ill. 
1160)  are  imitated  from  those  about  the  knees  of  the  Christ  at  Sou¬ 
vigny  (Ill.  125).  Since  Souvigny  is  not  earlier  than  c.  1140,  the  sculp¬ 
ture  at  Notre-Dame-du-Port  must  be  later  than  that  date. 

The  hand  of  the  master  of  the  Clermont-Ferrand  lintel  reappears 
in  the  tympanum  of  Valence  (Ill.  1189).  The  style  of  the  two  works 
is  so  similar  that  it  is  difficult  to  determine  which  is  older;  Valence, 
however,  seems  somewhat  more  purely  Burgundian  than  Notre- 
Dame-du-Port. 

One  of  the  features  introduced  at  Conques  and  taken  over  at 
Notre-Dame-du-Port  is  the  pedimented  lintel.  The  origin  of  the 
motive  is  obscure.  The  earliest  example  with  which  I  am  acquainted 
is  that  of  the  church  of  S.  Lorenzo  of  Zara,  now  in  the  museum  assem¬ 
bled  at  S.  Donato.^  It  is,  perhaps,  not  earlier  than  the  XI  century, 
although  it  has  been  called  Carlovingian.  The  motive  also  found  its 
way  to  Belgium.  It  seems  to  have  been  known  in  Spain,  since  it  is 
found  at  Barbedelo,  Santa  Maria  del  Sar  and  perhaps  at  S.  Isidore  of 
Leon. 2  It  was  probably  from  Spain  that  it  came  to  Conques.  At  all 
events  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  from  Conques  it  was  taken  over  at 
Notre-Dame-du-Port  (Ill.  1160,  1161)  and  copied  thence  throughout 
Auvergne  —  at  Mozat  (Ill.  1223),  in  the  lintel  now  enwalled  in  the 
Place  des  Gras  at  Clermont-Ferrand  (Ill.  1205),  at  Chambon  (Ill. 
1250),  at  Thuret  (Ill.  1139),  at  Meillers  (Ill.  1251),  at  Champagne 
and  at  Autry-Issard  (Ill.  1141). 

Reliefs  inserted  in  the  exterior  of  the  church  of  St.-Austremoine 
at  Issoire  representing  the  Sacrifice  of  Abraham  (Ill.  1210),  Abraham 
and  the  Three  Angels  (Ill.  1209)  and  the  Miracle  of  the  Loaves  and 
Fishes  (Ill.  1211)  are  obviously  derived  from  the  atelier  of  Conques. 
The  style  approaches  closely  that  of  the  angels  of  the  Conques  pen- 
dentives  (Ill.  388,  389).  One  is  almost  tempted  to  suppose  that  they 

*  Illustrated  by  Gurlitt,  70.  ^  King,  II,  192. 


LA  PUERTA  DE  LAS  PLATERIAS 


237 


are  earlier  fragments  re-employed  in  the  existing  church.  However, 
certain  details,  like  the  folds  about  the  left  leg  of  the  angel  in  the 
centre  of  the  Three  Angels  appearing  to  Abraham  (Ill.  i'209),  or  the 
perforated  borders  of  the  garments  show  that  we  have  here  late  imi¬ 
tations  of  earlier  models.  The  style  is  entirely  different  from  that  of 
other  reliefs  enwalled  in  the  choir  representing  the  zodiac  (Ill.  1208) 
and  also  from  that  of  the  capitals  of  the  ambulatory  (Ill.  1 21 2-1 214). 
These  all,  like  the  capitals  of  the  ambulatory  at  Notre-Dame-du- 
Port  of  Clermont-Ferrand  (Ill.  1167-1183)  show  a  strong  classic 
character,  and  the  influence  of  southern  models  —  especially  of  the 
frieze  at  Beaucaire  (Ill.  1292-1298)  and  the  works  of  Guglielmo  and 
Nicolb  in  Lombardy.  At  Issoire,  as  at  Notre-Dame-du-Port  we 
doubtless  have  two  ateliers,  with  widely  divergent  manners,  working 
upon  the  church  contemporaneously,  or  nearly  so.  Notre-Dame-du- 
Port  seems  to  stand  in  relation  to  Auvergne  in  much  the  same  rela¬ 
tion  that  Cluny  stands  to  Burgundy.  It  is  the  centre  from  which 
radiate  the  influences  which  bore  fruit  at  Champagne  (Ill.  1186),  St.- 
Nectaire  (Ill.  1 190-1204),  Volvic  (Ill.  1206,  1207),  Issoire  (Ill.*  1208- 
1214),  Mozat  (Ill.  1223-1227)  and  many  minor  edifices.^ 

The  Virgin  of  the  Annunciation  at  Conques  (Ill.  386)  appears  to 
have  been  known  to  the  sculptor  who  executed  the  Virgin  of  the 
Annunciation  under  the  vaulting  ribs  of  La  Trinite  at  Vendome 
(Ill.  i5I7).2 

The  influence  of  Conques  was  therefore  exceedingly  great.  Nor  is 
the  impression  which  it  produced  upon  contemporary  artists  to  be 
wondered  at.  It  moves  as  profoundly  the  spectator  of  to-day.  Not¬ 
withstanding  the  somewhat  restless  and  confused  effect  of  the  divi¬ 
sion  into  zones  by  bands  with  inscriptions,  the  freshness  of  the  poly- 
chromy,  the  quaintness  of  the  faces,  and  the  vigour  of  the  modelling 

1  St.-Nectaire  and  Champagne  resemble  Notre-Dame-du-Port  most  closely.  Issoire  is  more 
advanced,  while  Mozat  shows  the  style  in  its  ultimate  phase.  Indeed,  the  style  of  the  capitals 
at  Mozat  (Ill.  1224-1227)  seems  about  abreast  of  that  of  the  tomb  in  the  church  of  La  Magda¬ 
lena  at  Zamora  (Ill.  890,  891),  a  monument  which  is  probably  not  anterior  to  the  XIII  century. 

^  An  unexpected  relationship  of  the  Vendome  sculptures  is  with  the  work  of  Nicolo.  The  head 
of  the  youthful  bishop  at  Vendome  (Ill.  1518)  reproduces  almost  line  for  line  the  head  of  the 
St.  Zeno  in  the  tympanum  of  S.  Zeno  at  Verona. 


238  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

combine  to  make  of  this  one  of  the  grand  achievements  of  Roman¬ 
esque  art. 

Before  leaving  this  pair  of  sculptors  who  worked  together  at  Santi¬ 
ago  and  at  Conques,  it  is  interesting  to  note  that  the  relief  of  the 
Flagellation  (Ill.  680)  at  Santiago  appears  to  have  been  the  starting- 
point  for  a  whole  group  of  interesting  sculptures.  If  we  compare  this 
Flagellation  with  the  one  at  Beaucaire  (Ill.  1297),  we  shall  be  in  no 
doubt  as  to  whence  the  Beaucaire  sculptor  derived  his  inspiration. 
Now  from  Beaucaire  in  turn  are  derived  the  series  of  reliefs  deal¬ 
ing  with  the  Passion  which  belonged  to  the  pulpit  and  screens 
of  the  cathedral  at  Modena,  and  the  celebrated  frieze  of  St.- 
Gilles. 

Still  another  sculptor  of  Santiago  has  left  us  the  relief  of  the  Crea¬ 
tion  of  Adam  embedded  in  the  east  buttress  (Ill.  689).  He  is  an  in¬ 
ferior  creature  who  plods  along  at  a  respectful  distance  behind  the 
master  of  the  south  portal  of  St.-Sernin.  He  follows  him  so  faithfully 
that  he  must  have  worked  about  the  same  time. 

The  hand  of  the  same  master  may  be  recognized  in  the  portals  of 
San  Isidoro  of  Leon  (Ill.  696-702).^  This  church  seems  to  have  been 
the  object  of  a  number  of  reconstructions  which  succeeded  each  other 
from  the  middle  of  the  XI  century  until  the  final  consecration  of 
1149.  The  style  of  the  sculptures  of  S.  Isidoro  is  not  sensibly  differ¬ 
ent  from  that  of  the  works  of  the  same  master  in  the  Puerta  de  las 
Platerias.  His  Santa  Sabina  (Ill.  697)  shows  him  still  assiduously 
copying  the  work  of  his  more  gifted  contemporary  and  co-worker 
upon  the  Puerta  de  las  Platerias ;  his  S.  Isidoro  (Ill.  698)  is  a  faithful 
reproduction  of  the  St.  Peter  by  the  same  master  at  Toulouse  (Ill. 
312).  The  tympana  of  S.  Isidoro  have  a  certain  impressionistic  effect 
which  is  finer  than  anything  our  master  accomplished  at  Santiago ; 
I  can  not  detect,  however,  any  real  sign  of  progress  or  of  development 
in  his  style.  It  is  therefore  probable  that  the  work  at  S.  Isidoro  is 

^  The  eastern  portal  (Ill.  696-699)  is  perhaps  later  than  the  western  (Ill.  700-702).  The  heads 
of  the  spandrel  figures  (Ill.  700,  701)  have  been  remade.  The  draperies  of  the  tympanum 
(Ill.  702)  show  the  influence  of  Aragon  (III.  535-543),  those  of  the  spandrel  figures  (Ill.  700, 
701)  of  Moissac  (Ill.  262-273). 


LA  PUERTA  DE  LAS  PLATERIAS 


239 

approximately  contemporary  with  that  at  Compostela.  We  may 
consequently  assign  it  to  about  1120. 

It  was  apparently  from  the  already  troubled  waters  of  Leon  that 
somewhat  later  the  sculptor  of  St.-Bertrand-de-Comminges  drew  the 
inspiration  —  if  that  word  can  be  applied  to  so  sorry  a  performance 
—  for  his  tympanum  (Ill.  323-326). 


IV 


LATER  PILGRIMAGE  SCULPTURE 

With  the  completion  of  the  cathedral  of  Santiago  in  1124  ends  the 
great  creative  cycle  of  the  pilgrimage  school.  From  this  time  the 
sculpture  of  Spain  and  Aquitaine  reflects  various  foreign  influences. 
It  veers  about  like  a  weathercock,  pointing  now  to  Burgundy,  now 
to  Lombardy,  now  to  the  West,  now  to  Provence,  now  to  the  Ile- 
de-France.  The  strangers,  constantly  passing  back  and  forth  on 
the  road,  brought  with  them  motives  from  the  four  quarters  of  the 
world.  The  most  distant  and  unexpected  models  were  copied.  The 
pilgrimage  churches  became  an  international  mixing-pot  of  styles. 

In  the  third  decade  of  the  XII  century,  the  influence  of  Burgundy 
was  assuredly  the  most  prominent.  The  great  tympanum  of  Moissac 
(Ill.  339-342),  we  have  seen,  was  executed  under  this  inspiration.  At 
Leire  (Ill.  711-716)  Burgundian  influences  are  at  work  too ;  but  com¬ 
bined  with  other  elements.  The  St.  James  (Ill.  713)  is  another  replica 
of  the  over-copied  St.  Peter  (Ill.  312)  of  Toulouse;  the  Annunciation 
(Ill.  714)  is  reminiscent  of  that  of  the  Moissac  porch  (Ill.  376) ;  the 
skirts  of  the  figures  in  the  tympanum  fall  in  folds  precisely  like  those 
of  the  figure  to  the  right  in  the  tomb  of  Begon  at  Conques  (Ill.  387), 
the  flaring  lower  garment  and  the  trailing  sleeves  recall  Notre-Dame- 
la-Grande  of  Poitiers  (Ill.  960,  961) ;  the  caryatid  lions,  Lombardy. 

The  same  polyglot  and  cosmopolitan  character  permeates  the  well- 
known  jamb  sculptures  from  the  chapter-house  of  St.-Etienne  in 
Toulouse  (Ill.  434-443).  The  assistant  of  Gilbert  marks  at  once  the 
extreme  development  and  the  extreme  degradation  of  the  Toulousan 
style.  Cynicism  could  go  no  further.  These  strange  creations  in  their 
mocking,  demoniac  attitudes,  their  stocky  proportions,  their  coarse 
quality  make  us  understand  the  character  of  the  Albigensian  heresy ; 
after  studying  them,  one  almost  finds  St.  Louis  sympathetic.  Like 


LATER  PILGRIMAGE  SCULPTURE 


241 


all  the  sculpture  of  the  South-west  of  this  period  they  reflect  a  multi¬ 
tude  of  foreign  influences.  The  sculptor  seems  to  have  been  formed 
in  that  atelier  of  ivory-carving  which  produced  the  New  York  Jour¬ 
ney  to  Emmaus  and  Noli  me  tangere  (Ill.  709).  His  facial  types  seem 
to  be  derived  from  a  master  of  Santiago  —  the  one  who  did  the  St. 
James  (Ill.  676)  and  the  St.  Peter  (Ill.  675).  They  are,  however,  ob¬ 
viously  much  later  and  more  advanced.  Some  of  the  draperies  come 
from  the  same  source.  The  master  also  knew  the  “Signs”  (Ill.  322) 
of  St.-Sernin.  Other  draperies  are  inspired  by  the  tympanum  of 
Moissac  (Ill.  339-442).  Nicolb’s  earlier,  crisper  and  more  archaic 
work  at  Ferrara  is  perhaps  derived  from  the  same  lost  original  as  the 
figures  of  Gilbert’s  assistant.’^  The  capitals  of  the  niches  show  the 
influence  of  the  Moissac  cloister  ( Ill.  262-273).  The  movement  of  the 
draperies  of  certain  figures  is  Burgundian,  the  draperies,  the  hair  and 
beard  conventions,  and  the  ornamented  borders  of  others  are  derived 
from  St.-Denis  (i  137-1 140)  —  Ill.  1437-1457  —  or  Chartres.  There 
is  a  XIII  century  feeling  in  the  faces  and  hair  conventions  which 
suggests  a  date  in  the  second  half  of  the  XII  century.  If  we  com¬ 
pare  these  heads  with  those  of  Beaulieu  (r.  1135)  —  Ill.  409-420  —  , 
we  shall  be  convinced  that  they  are  notably  later.  The  tomb  of 
Dona  Blanca  (1156) — Ill.  719  —  at  Najera  ^  is  from  the  point  of 
view  of  style  closely  related  to  the  St.-Etienne  sculptures.  The 
analogies  in  the  draperies  are  striking.  Two  capitals  of  the  cloister  of 
St.-Etienne  show  motives  (lions’  heads  from  which  issues  a  stem  (Ill. 
448),  little  nude  men  climbing  among  vines)  ®  that  are  familiar  in 
Apulian  art  of  the  second  half  of  the  XII  century  (see,  for  example, 
the  Duomo  and  later  portions  of  S.  Niccola  at  Bari).  Other  decora¬ 
tion  is  very  analogous  to  that  of  the  tomb  of  the  bishop  Jean  at  St.- 
Etienne  of  Perigueux  (f  1169).  Compared  with  the  sculptures  of  St.- 

^  The  Ferrara  sculptures  can  not  be  derived  from  the  Toulouse  cycle,  for  they  are  earlier  in 
date.  Moreover,  the  work  at  Ferrara  shows  points  of  contact  only  with  Gilbert’s  assistant, 
not  with  Gilbert  himself.  This  would  hardly  be  conceivable,  had  Nicolo  seen  the  work  at 
Toulouse. 

^  The  tomb  at  Najera  is  in  turn  closely  related  to  the  portal  of  Santa  Maria  at  Sepulveda 
(Ill.  799-804). 

*  This  motive  is  also  found  on  one  of  the  columns  of  the  west  fagade  of  Chartres. 


242  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

Denis  (Ill.  1437-1457)  the  faces  of  Gilbert’s  assistant  appear  more 
advanced  and  Gothic-like  than  any  of  the  work  in  that  portal.  More¬ 
over,  the  Toulouse  apostles  are  all  of  the  same  height;  now  in  the 
early  cycles  at  Verona,  at  St.-Denis,  at  Etampes  and  at  Chartres  the 
statues  had  been  of  varying  heights  —  it  was  only  later  that  they 
were  made  uniform  as  in  the  Toulouse  series.  From  all  this  we  con¬ 
clude  that  the  activity  of  Gilbert’s  assistant  can  hardly  fall  before 
the  fifth  decade  of  the  XII  century. 

The  study  of  the  style  of  Gilbert  himself  leads  us  to  the  same  con¬ 
clusion.  He  comes  out  of  Autun  (1132)  —  Ill.  67-81  —  and  shows 
the  strong  influence  of  St.-Denis  (1137-1140)  —  Ill.  1437-1457  — 
if  not  also  of  Chartres.  He  has  close  points  of  contact  with  Chaden- 
nac  (Ill.  1034-1040),  which  is  a  dated  monument  of  1 140.  Compared 
with  St.-Denis  (Ill.  1437-1457)  his  draperies  are  clearly  finer,  more 
elaborate,  more  complicated,  more  advanced.  The  draperies  of  his 
Virgin  at  Solsona  (Ill.  552)  are  indeed  strikingly  analogous  to  those 
of  the  tympanum  of  St.-Trophime  of  Arles  (Ill.  1372)  which  dates 
from  1152.  A  date  about  1145  for  the  cloister  of  St.-Etienne  would, 
therefore,  be  in  accordance  with  what  we  can  deduce  from  the  style 
of  the  two  masters. 

The  capitals  of  the  cloister  of  La  Daurade  at  Toulouse,  now  gath¬ 
ered  together  in  the  museum,  are  of  two  distinct  periods.  The  earlier 
group  (Ill.  288-295)  is  closely  analogous  to  the  cloister  at  Moissac 
(Ill.  274-287),  as  we  may  easily  convince  ourselves  by  comparing  the 
two  Daniels  (Ill.  278  and  Ill.  288).  It  is,  indeed,  difficult  to  determine 
which  is  the  older.  On  the  whole,  the  Daurade  seems  to  be  slightly 
the  more  archaic  ;  but  in  any  case  the  two  monuments  must  be  nearly 
contemporaneous.  It  is  evident  that  the  cloister  of  Santo  Domingo 
de  Silos  (Ill.  666-673)  was  well  known  to  these  artists.  The  second 
group  of  Daurade  capitals  (Ill.  462-473)  is  of  much  later  date.  Some 
of  them  are  by  the  same  hand  as  the  jamb  sculptures  of  the  chapter- 
house  (Ill.  474-479) ;  others  show  clumsy  imitation  of  the  capitals  of 
Gilbert’s  assistant  at  St.-Etienne  (Ill.  444-447).  A  peculiarity  of 
several  of  these  capitals  is  the  hanging  arches  from  the  abacus  divid- 


LATER  PILGRIMAGE  SCULPTURE 


243 


ing  the  bell  of  the  capital  into  two  fields  (Ill.  464-466,  468,  469). 
This  motive  is  also  found  on  a  capital  of  Notre-Dame-des-Doms  at 
Avignon,  now  in  the  Musee  Calvet,^  a  monument  which  dates  cer¬ 
tainly  from  the  second  half  of  the  XII  century.  Buschbeck  ^  has 
recognized  that  the  later  capitals  of  La  Daurade  (Ill.  462-473)  are 
closely  related  stylistically  with  the  cloister  of  St.-Bertrand-de- 
Comminges  (Ill.  492,  494,  496). 

The  sculptures  of  the  jambs  of  the  chapter-house  of  La  Daurade 
were  seen  by  Du  Mege  while  they  were  still  in  their  original  position, 
before  the  destruction  of  the  cloister  in  1813.  He  thus  describes 
them  :  “La  porte  de  la  Chapelle  du  chapitre  avait  huit  statues  tenant 
lieu  de  colonnes;  le  montant  de  gauche  contenait  un  bas-relief  en 
marbre  peint,  representant  la  Sainte-Vierge  tenant  I’Enfant-Divin 
sur  ses  genoux ;  en  regard  paraissait  David  assis,  accordant  sa  harpe. 
.  .  .  En  avant  du  portail  et  faisant  saillie,  etaient,  de  chaque  cote 
deux  bas-reliefs  representant  un  Roi,  une  Reine  et  deux  saints  ou 
prophetes.  Dans  I’epaisseur  de  la  saillie  et  dans  le  retour,  il  y  avait, 
de  chaque  cote,  et  faisant  de  meme  avant-corps,  un  bas-relief.”® 

The  fact  that  the  reliefs  of  La  Daurade  were  jamb  sculptures  in¬ 
serted  in  the  door  of  the  chapter-house  at  once  suggests  that  they 
are  derived  from  the  analogous  sculptures  of  St. -Etienne.  The  style 
of  the  Daurade  fragments  (Ill.  474-479)  is,  however,  notably  differ¬ 
ent  from  that  of  the  St.-Etienne  apostles  (Ill.  434-443).  It  is  evident 
at  a  glance  that  they  are  much  less  vital.  They  are,  as  Voge  recog¬ 
nized  nearly  thirty  years  ago,  flat  imitations  of  Chartres.  One  per¬ 
ceives,  however,  that  they  are  much  later  in  date  than  their  original. 
This  is  clear  not  only  in  the  less  vigorous  modelling,  in  the  monotony 
of  the  composition,  and  the  general  commonplaceness  of  the  execu¬ 
tion,  but  in  certain  of  the  heads  which  have  already  Gothic  character. 

There  is,  indeed,  proof  that  this  master  worked  about  the  end  of 
the  century.^  The  draperies  of  the  jamb  sculptures  of  the  Daurade 

1  Illustrated  by  Labande,  PI.  LXXVIII.  ^ 

®  Du  Mege,  246—247. 

*  Buschbeck,  40,  has  discovered  documentary  evidence  that  the  cloister  was  finished  before 
1205. 


244  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

(Ill.  474-479)  are  precisely  like  those  of  the  celebrated  Annunciation 
of  the  Toulouse  Museum  (Ill.  480,  481).^  The  head  of  the  Gabriel 
(Ill.  482,  483)  ^  is  exceedingly  like  that  of  one  of  the  Daurade  proph¬ 
ets  (Ill.  474,  figure  at  right).  The  draperies  of  the  Virgin  of  the 
Annunciation  (Ill.  481)  are  like  those  of  the  next  Daurade  prophet 
(Ill.  474).  The  lower  border  of  the  garment  of  the  Gabriel  (Ill.  480) 
is  similar  to  that  of  the  Daurade  Virgin  (Ill.  479).  But  the  quality  of 
the  Daurade  sculptures  is  much  poorer  than  that  of  the  Annuncia¬ 
tion.  It  is  evident  that  the  master  of  the  Daurade  jambs  knew  and 
copied  the  Annunciation.  Therefore  the  Daurade  must  be  later. 

But  can  we  determine  the  date  of  the  Annunciation  ? 

The  head  of  the  Gabriel  (Ill.  482,  483)  is  very  similar  to  the  heads 
of  the  jamb  sculptures  (Ill.  498-500)  that  raise  the  portal  of  Val- 
cabrere  to  more  than  antique  heights.  There  is  in  both  the  same 
pointed  chin,  the  same  mouth  with  lips  rising  in  the  corners,  the  same 
long  hooked  nose,  the  same  low  forehead,  the  same  naturalistic  ear. 
Moreover,  in  both  works  the  eye  is  placed  in  the  horizontal  (or  nearly 
so)  portion  of  the  socket,  not  vertically  in  the  cheek  as  in  nature.  It 
is  this  peculiarity  which  gives  the  sculptures  their  character. 

On  observing  more  attentively  the  sculptures  of  Valcabrere,  we 
perceive  that  the  radiance  of  this  remarkable  work  proceeds  from 
the  heads,  or  to  be  more  exact,  from  three  of  the  heads,  and  from  the 
outer  figure  on  the  right-hand  side ;  the  rest  is  not  only  inferior,  but 
intolerably  blundering.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  two  very  unequal 
hands  worked  together  on  this  portal. 

The  finer  of  these  hands,  as  we  have  said,  is  close  to  the  master  of 

^  The  types  of  the  Toulouse  Annunciation  could  only  have  originated  in  Byzantium.  Their 
spirit  can  hardly  be  equalled  except  in  the  technically  dissimilar  relief  of  Adalia,  illustrated  by 
Pace,  103.  The  closest  prototype  which  I  know  is  the  ivory  Annunciation  in  the  Trivulzio  col¬ 
lection  at  Milan,  illustrated  by  Venturi,  II,  6i6.  This  it  is  now  believed  to  be  a  fragment  of  the 
Grado  throne,  an  Alexandrine  work  of  the  VI  century.  During  the  XI  and  XII  centuries  the 
Grado  throne  seems  to  have  been  copied  by  artists  of  widely  separated  parts  of  Europe.  It 
served  as  model  to  the  ivory-carver  of  the  altar-frontal  at  Salerno,  and  to  Nicolo  when  he  com¬ 
posed  his  reliefs  on  the  facade  of  S.  Zeno  of  Verona.  The  Toulouse  Annunciation  may  be  an¬ 
other  derivative,  direct  or  indirect.  The  close  resemblance  of  the  Toulouse  angel  to  the  Byzan¬ 
tine  angels  of  S.  Marco  at  Venice  has  been  remarked  by  Buschbeck  (39)  —  see  especially  the 
one  illustrated  by  Ongania,  PI.  376. 

^  Unfortunately  the  nose  of  the  Virgin  (Ill.  484,  485)  is  modern. 


LATER  PILGRIMAGE  SCULPTURE 


245 


the  Toulouse  Annunciation.  His  heads  have  the  same  stern  quality 
as  that  of  the  Gabriel ;  like  that,  one  could  almost  believe  them  in¬ 
spired  by  an  archaic  Greek  model.  They  are,  indeed,  extraordinarily 
fine.  In  looking  at  them,  we  seem  to  breathe  the  atmosphere  of  demi¬ 
gods  and  heroes.  This  Xll-century  artist  of  the  Pyrenees  attains  all 
that  Rome  would  have  been,  but  never  was. 

His  uncouth  assistant  (Ill.  501-502)  is  of  little  intrinsic  merit,  and 
probably  a  local  light,  since  we  find  his  hand  again  in  the  adossed 
figures  of  the  neighbouring  cloisters  of  St.-Bertrand-de-Comminges 
(Ill.  492-495,  496).^  In  the  tympanum  of  Valcabrere  (Ill.  501,  502) 
he  seems  to  be  trying  feebly  to  imitate  Burgundian  models.  His  was 
clearly  an  unskilful  chisel  of  the  end  of  the  XII  century. 

Indeed,  the  significance  of  the  Valcabrere  sculptures  in  this  con¬ 
nection  lies  in  the  fact  that  their  date  can  be  determined.  The  church 
of  Valcabrere  was  consecrated  in  1200.  The  portal  must,  therefore, 
have  been  executed  somewhat  before  this  time. 

All  this  brings  the  date  of  the  Toulouse  Annunciation  and  the 
Daurade  fragments  down  to  at  least  the  last  quarter  of  the  XII  cen¬ 
tury.  It  is  exceedingly  improbable  that  they  are  earlier  than  i  175- 

Other  trains  of  reasoning  bring  us  to  the  same  conclusion.  If  we 
compare  the  Virgin  (Ill.  479)  with  the  Virgin  of  Gilbert  at  Solsona 
(Ill.  552)  or  with  those  of  his  assistants  at  St.-Junien  (Ill.  451)  or  on 
the  capitals  of  St.-Etienne  (Ill.  447),  we  shall  perceive  that  the  sculp¬ 
tor  of  the  Daurade  owed  much  to  the  art  of  Gilbert.  The  facial  type 
of  his  Virgin  (Ill.  479)  is,  indeed,  that  of  the  Virgin  of  Solsona  (Ill. 
552) ;  but  how  weak  and  spineless  it  is  in  comparison,  how  lacking  in 
character !  We  feel  in  one  the  strength  and  vigour  of  a  living  and 
progressing  tradition,  in  the  other  the  languid  imitation  of  a  deca¬ 
dent  age. 

It  was,  however,  not  only  in  Spain  that  the  master  of  the  Daurade 
cloisters  sought  inspiration.  The  canopy  under  which  his  Virgin  sits 
connects  his  work  with  a  series  of  Virgins  similarly  placed  under  can¬ 
opies.  The  earliest  example  of  this  type  I  suppose  to  be  the  Virgin 

^The  same,  or  a  very  closely  related  hand,  worked  also  at  St.-Aventin  (Ill.  508-510). 


246  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

(Ill.  1299)  which  once  formed  part  of  the  Adoration  in  the  tympanum 
at  Beaucaire,  and  which,  wickedly  restored,  still  exists  in  the  house 
of  the  priest  in  that  city.  This  probably  inspired  by  some  means  the 
very  different  version  of  the  theme  in  the  southern  tympanum  of 
Chartres  as  it  did  the  Virgin  at  York  in  England.^  The  Virgin  at 
Donzy  (Ill.  113)  is  obviously  a  derivative  of  the  one  at  Chartres. 
The  sculptor  of  La  Daurade  certainly  knew  Chartres ;  but  it  is  rather 
in  the  Midi  that  he  sought  the  inspiration  for  his  Virgin.  The  statue 
of  Beaucaire  (Ill.  1299)  had  had  descendants  along  the  Mediterra¬ 
nean  as  well  as  in  the  North.  The  Virgin  from  Fontfroide,  now  at  the 
University  of  Montpellier  (Ill.  1301)  is  certainly  a  derivative.  Here, 
too,  the  subject  is  the  Adoration ;  the  posture  of  the  child  is  identical ; 
the  Virgin  is  in  the  same  position,  her  right  hand  similarly  raised,  the 
knees  spread  apart  in  the  same  manner.  The  similarity  of  the  long 
folds  of  the  draperies  over  the  knees  is  unmistakable.  Indeed,  the 
two  sculptures  were,  perhaps,  more  closely  alike  than  we  should  sus¬ 
pect,  for  the  head  of  the  Beaucaire  statue  is  a  modern  restoration. 
The  chief  difference  in  the  two  works,  and  what  shows  the  Font¬ 
froide  Virgin  to  be  later,  is  not  only  its  inferior  quality,  but  the  less 
attenuated  proportions.  In  the  second  half  of  the  XII  century  atten¬ 
uation  went  out  of  fashion,  and  the  figures  tend  to  become  ever 
heavier. 

In  the  northern  tympanum  of  St.-Gilles  is  another  Adoration  (Ill. 
1386)  which  must  be  a  third  member  of  this  series.  The  relationship 
to  Beaucaire  (Ill.  1299)  is  clear  —  in  both  we  have  the  Virgin  in  the 
Adoration  seated  under  a  canopy  in  the  middle  of  a  tympanum.  The 
position  of  Virgin  and  Child  is  still  precisely  the  same.  The  Child  is 
still  seated  on  the  left  knee  of  His  mother ;  He  raises  His  right  hand 
with  exactly  the  same  gesture ;  the  Virgin  has  the  same  knees,  widely 
spread  apart ;  her  right  hand  is  in  the  same  position.  The  folds  of  the 
left  knee  of  the  Virgin  (Ill.  1386)  resemble  those  of  the  Virgin  of  Font¬ 
froide  (Ill.  1301)  rather  than  those  of  the  Virgin  of  Beaucaire  (Ill. 

^  Illustrated  by  Prior  and  Gardner,  135.  I  am  indebted  to  Mr.  Eric  Maclagen  for  having 
suggested  to  me  this  comparison. 


LATER  PILGRIMAGE  SCULPTURE 


247 


1299).  The  chair  of  St.-Gilles  is  also  the  chair  of  Fontfroide,  not  that 
of  Beaucaire.  But  the  composition,  the  placing  of  the  subject  in  a 
tympanum,  must  have  come  from  Beaucaire,  not  from  Fontfroide. 
Therefore,  the  sculptor  of  St.-Gilles  knew  both  Beaucaire  and  Font¬ 
froide.  He  is  consequently  the  latest  of  the  three.  This  conclusion  is 
confirmed  when  we  observe  that  his  proportions  are  heavier  than 
those  even  of  the  Fontfroide  sculptor;  attenuation  has  definitely  dis¬ 
appeared.  The  series  therefore  runs :  Beaucaire,  Fontfroide,  St.- 
Gilles. 

Now  we  shall  see  that  the  tympanum  of  St.-Gilles  is  certainly  later 
than  the  central  portion  of  the  fagade,  which  was  erected  about 
1140;  and  there  is  reason  to  believe  that  it  may  not  have  been 
executed  until  about  1180.^ 

When  we  place  the  Virgin  of  La  Daurade  (Ill.  479)  in  comparison 
with  this  series  we  easily  perceive  that  she  is  the  latest  of  the  se¬ 
quence.  The  proportions  are  the  heaviest  of  all.  The  draperies  full 
of  many  fine  folds  at  Beaucaire  gradually  become  simpler  and 
broader  at  Fontfroide  and  St.-Gilles,  but  at  La  Daurade  they  are  the 
simplest  and  broadest  of  all.  The  canopies  at  Beaucaire  and  St.- 
Gilles  are  destroyed,  but  it  is  clear  that  that  of  La  Daurade  is  far 
more  elaborate  and  developed  than  that  of  Fontfroide.  The  engaged 
pediment  over  the  arch  with  plate  tracery  indeed  is  strangely  like 
Gothic  architecture  of  c.  1200. 

Another  Virgin  of  this  series  is  in  the  cloister  of  Santillana  del  Mar 
(Ill.  867).  She  is  obviously  the  broadest,  the  squatest,  and  the  latest 
of  them  all.  In  fact,  there  are  independent  reasons  for  believing  that 
she  can  hardly  be  earlier  than  the  end  of  the  XII  century.  Yet  it  is 
evident  that  this  very  late  Virgin  is  a  close  relative  of  the  Virgin 
of  La  Daurade.  The  capitals  and  ornament  of  the  canopy  are  very 
much  the  same ;  the  folds  of  the  drapery  over  the  right  knees,  the 
right  upper  arms  and  the  lower  edge  of  the  garments  are  similar. 

A  clumsy  imitator  of  Gilbert’s  assistant,  if  I  mistake  not  the  very 

^  See  below,  p.  301.  For  a  discussion  of  the  fragmentary  Adoration  of  the  Magi  at  St.-Gilles, 
and  other  works  which  also  belong  to  this  series,  see  below,  p.  277, 


248  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

same  who  is  responsible  for  many  of  the  Daurade  capitals  of  the 
second  series  (Ill.  462-473),  executed  the  holy-water  basin  from  Nar- 
bonne,  now  in  the  Toulouse  Museum  (Ill.  486,  487).  This,  too,  must 
then  date  from  about  the  eighth  decade  of  the  XII  century. 

A  tympanum  of  peculiar  interest  is  that  of  the  Cluniac  priory  of 
Carennac  (Ill.  381-385).  This  is  by  the  hand  of  a  sculptor  whom  we 
have  little  difficulty  in  recognizing  in  the  tympanum  of  another 
Cluniac  priory,  that  of  Mauriac  (Ill.  1246,  1247)  in  Auvergne.  This 
artist  certainly  has  little  connection  with  the  school  of  Toulouse.  I 
should  not  be  surprised  if  he  came  out  of  some  such  atelier  as  that 
which  created  the  tomb  of  the  daughters  of  Ramiro  I  at  Jaca  (Ill. 
527).  But  if  he  was  Aragonese  by  birth,  it  is  clear  that  he  wandered 
far,  and  absorbed  a  curious  mixture  of  foreign  influences.  One  of  the 
most  notable  is  that  of  Lombardy.  The  head  of  the  apostle  to  Christ’s 
left  in  the  second  row  of  the  Carennac  tympanum  (Ill.  383)  is  a  faith¬ 
ful  reproduction  of  that  of  Guglielmo’s  Jeremiah  at  Cremona.  The 
lion  beneath  the  jambs  at  Mauriac  (Ill.  1249)  is  certainly  the  echo  of 
a  Lombard  motive.  It  may  be  debated  whether  our  sculptor,  if  he  be 
Aragonese,  derived  his  knowledge  of  Lombard  art  directly  or  from 
the  atelier  in  which  he  was  educated.  The  school  of  Aragon  shows  the 
strong  influence  of  Guglielmo,  from  whose  art  it  is  assuredly  derived. 
The  draperies  of  the  skirts  of  the  two  figures  supporting  the  aureole 
in  the  tomb  of  the  daughters  of  Ramiro  I  (Ill.  527)  are  precisely  like 
those  of  Enoch  and  Elijah  in  the  Cremona  relief. The  gesture  and 
posture  of  the  angels  is  exactly  that  of  the  Cremona  prophets.  In  the 
tomb,  draperies  are  indicated  by  two  parallel  incised  lines,  just  as  in 
the  works  of  Guglielmo.  There  can  then  be  no  doubt  of  the  very  close 
dependence  of  the  school  of  Aragon  upon  Lombardy.  Our  sculptor’s 
Lombard  draperies,  lions  and  facial  types  may  then  have  come  to 
him  without  a  trip  to  Lombardy. 

The  Majestas  Domini  which  occupies  the  centre  of  the  Carennac 
tympanum  (Ill.  383)  may  be  derived  from  the  fragments  of  the 
St.-Sernin  altar,  now  enwalled  in  the  ambulatory  (Ill.  296-307).  The 

^  I  have  illustrated  this  relief  in  the  Gazette  des  Beaux- Arts,  1919,  LXI,  51. 


LATER  PILGRIMAGE  SCULPTURE 


249 

peculiar  division  by  vertical  and  horizontal  bands  in  the  Carennac 
tympanum  seems,  in  fact,  to  be  due  to  the  attempt  to  adjust  to  a 
lunette  a  composition  which  was  certainly  created  for  a  field  of  far 
different  shape.  We  can  feel  the  effort  of  the  sculptor  to  accommo¬ 
date  a  rectangular  original  to  the  space  of  a  tympanum. 

The  horizontal  and  vertical  bands  which  he  introduces  recall 
Conques  (Ill.  392)  on  the  one  hand,  and  St.-Junien  (Ill.  450)  on  the 
other. 

An  unexpected  affinity  of  our  sculptor  is  with  Germany.  The  fig¬ 
ure  to  the  extreme  right  in  the  upper  zone  of  the  tympanum  at  Car¬ 
ennac  (Ill.  384)  reproduces  line  for  line  the  figure  in  the  right-hand 
corner  of  a  miniature  of  the  Perikopenbuch  von  St.  Erentrud  in 
Munich  ^  representing  the  Crucifixion.  There  is  an  unmistakable 
similarity  between  the  style  of  the  Carennac  artist  and  that  of  the 
master  who  executed  the  tympanum  of  the  Galluspforte  at  Basel. 2 

The  animals  in  the  decorative  frieze  which  runs  below  the  tym¬ 
panum  at  Carennac  (Ill.  382,  383)  are  among  the  most  spirited  and 
naturalistic  in  mediaeval  art.  They  are  only  rivalled  by  those  of  the 
St.-Gilles  frieze  (Ill.  1315-1317;  1321,  1322),  and  perhaps  also  come 
eventually  from  Apulia. 

The  tympanum  at  Mauriac  (Ill.  1246,  1247)  is  certainly  later  than 
that  at  Carennac  (Ill.  381-385).  Burgundian  influence  is  barely  per¬ 
ceptible  at  Carennac  (Ill.  381-385) ;  ^  at  Mauriac  it  is  predominate 
(Ill.  1246,  1247).  It  is  apparent  in  the  composition,  which  is  pre¬ 
cisely  that  of  Montceaux-l’Etoile  (Ill.  104),  in  the  angels  in  violent 
movement  on  either  side  of  the  aureole  and  in  the  leg  bands  of  several 
of  the  apostles  (Ill.  1247).  We  may  safely  conjecture  that  our  master 
went  to  Burgundy  after  he  executed  Carennac,  and  before  he  worked 
at  Mauriac. 

This  journey  to  Burgundy  probably  took  place  about  1130,  since 
our  artist  brought  back  the  composition  of  the  tympanum  of  Mont- 

^  Illustrated  by  Swarzenski,  No.  200. 

2  Illustrated  by  Dehio  und  von  Bezold,  XII,  9. 

2  Chiefly  in  the  drapery  edge  of  the  upper  garment  falling  diagonally  across  the  knees  of 
Christ  (Ill.  383). 


250  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

ceaux-l’Etoile  and  the  motive  of  leg  bands,  both  of  which  were  con¬ 
spicuously  in  the  air  about  that  time. 

Another  pilgrimage  sculptor  of  interest  is  the  one  who  executed  the 
tympanum  of  Cahors  (Ill.  421-429)  and  whose  hand  it  is  easy  to 
recognize  also  in  the  sculptures  of  St.-Martin  of  Souillac  (Ill.  430) 
and  in  the  tympanum  of  Martel  (Ill.  431-433).  The  latter,  indeed, 
if  abstraction  be  made,  of  the  modern  heads,  is  one  of  the  most 
heraldic  and  haunting  compositions  achieved  by  the  school  of 
Languedoc.  The  artistic  genealogy  of  our  master  is  not  altogether 
easy  to  disentangle.  The  faces  of  the  Cahors  apostles  are  certainly 
derived  from  the  Carennac  Master  —  compare,  for  example,  the 
apostle  to  the  right  in  Ill.  427  with  the  one  to  the  right  in  Ill.  382. 
The  angels  on  either  side  of  the  aureole  (Ill.  422, 424)  are  literal  copies 
of  those  of  the  tympanum  of  Mauriac  (Ill.  1246),  which  is  a  work  of 
the  Carennac  Master.  In  the  folds  of  the  draperies  (Ill.  429,  apostle 
with  crossed  legs,  lower  half)  our  sculptor  shows  knowledge  of  the 
porch  of  Moissac  (Ill.  377).  The  composition  of  the  tympanum  is 
obviously  inspired  by  that  of  the  tympanum  of  Moissac.  (Compare 
Ill.  339  with  Ill.  422.)  Other  draperies  (for  example,  the  skirts  of  the 
apostle  with  crossed  legs.  Ill.  429)  seem  derived  from  the  work  of  the 
Angouleme  Master  of  St.-Gilles  (Ill.  1304).  The  short  tunics  of  the 
figures  in  the  scenes  from  the  life  of  St.  Stephen  (Ill.  423,  426)  recall 
those  of  the  frieze  of  St.-Gilles  (Ill.  1315-1322).!  Our  artist  uses  con¬ 
stantly  the  whisk  of  drapery  consisting  of  a  groove  separated  by  two 
sharp  edges  from  turned-over  folds  (e.  g.y  apostle  to  extreme  right.  Ill. 
429,  drapery  between  feet)  which  we  shall  see  was  invented  at  Beau- 
caire  (Ill.  1299)  and  copied  at  St.-Gilles. ^  His  canopies  seem  a  de¬ 
velopment  of  those  of  the  capitals  of  Chartres,  but  the  trilobed  arch 
is  a  Spanish  motive.  From  all  this  we  conclude  that  the  Cahors 
tympanum  was  hardly  produced  before  about  1150.  It  is  probably 
the  latest  work  of  the  series ;  the  fine  simplicity  of  Martel  suggests 
that  it  is  earlier,  while  St.-Martin  of  Souillac  is  dull,  and  presumably 
immature. 

*  This  was  suggested  to  me  by  Mr.  Priest. 

^  See  below,  p.  277,  278. 


LATER  PILGRIMAGE  SCULPTURE 


251 


It  is  obvious  that  the  chief  inspiration  for  the  frieze  of  Carrion  de 
los  Condes  (Ill.  722-726)  was  the  lintel  of  Cahors  (Ill.  427-429).  In 
the  broad  lines  of  the  composition,  the  Majestas  Domini  reproduces 
the  type  which  we  have  found  at  St.-Sernin  (Ill.  296),  Carennac  (Ill. 
381-385)  and  St.-Junien  (Ill.  450).  Here  again  we  have  the  impres¬ 
sion  that  an  area  has  been  reproduced  —  the  apostles  in  arches  recall 
the  elders  at  St.-Junien  (Ill.  450).  But  in  this  case  I  suspect  that  the 
inspiration  came  not  so  much  from  a  sculptured  tomb,  as  from  a 
Limoges  chasse.  I  even  venture  to  suggest  that  the  very  model  may 
have  been  the  reliquary  formerly  at  Santo  Domingo  de  Silos,  but 
now  preserved  in  the  museum  of  Burgos. 

The  Limoges  origin  of  this  area,  generally  admitted,  has  recently 
been  combatted  by  Leguina  ^  who  supposes  it  made  in  Orense.  The 
purely  Spanish  type  of  the  figures  will  be  denied  by  no  one  familiar 
with  Romanesque  sculpture,  but  precisely  such  figures  are  character¬ 
istic  of  the  entire  group  of  enamels  that  pass  as  work  of  Limoges. 
Limoges  was  a  station  on  the  pilgrimage  road ;  its  great  basilica  was 
another  replica  of  Santiago,  and  the  enamels  called  Limoges  are  only 
a  branch  of  the  art  of  the  pilgrimage. ^  Enamels  may  be  credited  with 
having  played  a  large  part  in  carrying  to  the  Rhine,  and  indeed 
throughout  the  world,  the  forms  of  pilgrimage  sculpture. 

There  is  the  same  uncertainty  regarding  the  date  of  the  Silos  area 
as  about  its  place  of  origin.  Rupin,  with  evident  error,  assigns  it  to 
the  XIII  century.  Roulin  was  doubtless  closer  to  the  mark  in  ascrib¬ 
ing  it  to  the  last  third  of  the  XII  century,  and  Dieulafoy  closer  still 
in  placing  it  in  the  second  half  of  the  XII  century.^  Its  figures,  in 
fact,  show  the  style  of  r.  1 1 50. 

Now  the  composition  of  this  chasse  is  similar  to  that  of  the  Car- 
ri6n  frieze ;  and  there  is  furthermore  good  reason  to  believe  that  the 

1 167  f. 

^  Cf.  Molinier,  in  Michel,  I,  2,  871  discussing  this  area :  II  semblerait  meme,  a  certains  details 
de  dessin,  que  les  ouvriers  qui  ont  imagine  cette  decoration  ont  pu  avoir  sous  les  yeux  certains 
modules  orientaux  importes  d’Espagne.  La  chose  ne  serait  pas  autrement  etonnante  puisque, 
sur  un  asse2  grand  nombre  de  monuments  limousins,  nous  relevons  des  imitations  de  caracteres 
arabes  transformes  en  ornament  et  n’ayant  plus  aucune  signification  litterale. 

^  7.  Dieulafoy  suspected  the  piece  might  be  Spanish. 


252  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

head  master  at  Carrion  (for  he  obviously  did  not  work  alone)  had 
seen  the  chasse.  His  style  shows  close  relationship  to  that  of  the  well- 
known  Annunciation  of  the  Santo  Domingo  cloister  (Ill.  721).^  I 
almost  question,  in  fact,  whether  that  work  be  not  by  his  very  hand. 
In  any  event,  the  master  of  Carrion  had  certainly  been  at  Silos.  The 
chasse  must  then  almost  surely  have  come  under  his  observation. 

He  also  sought  inspiration  in  many  other  quarters  besides.  He 
seems  to  have  known  the  work  of  the  Charlieu  master  (Ill.  108-111), 
and  to  have  derived  thence  his  hands  and  feet  of  such  peculiar  type, 
and  the  angel  sculptured  in  relief  on  the  column.  The  draperies  of 
his  Christ  are  very  similar  to  those  of  the  Virgin  of  the  Charlieu  mas¬ 
ter  at  Donzy  (Ill.  iii-iiq).^  The  canopies  which  surmount  the 
apostles  are  no  longer  the  simple  round  arches  of  the  Silos  area, 
which  are  so  strangely  like  those  of  St.-Denis  (Ill.  144I,  1442),  but 
elaborate  polylobed  canopies  which  must  have  come  directly  from 
the  lintel  of  Cahors  (Ill.  427),  but  ultimately  from  the  capitals  of 
Chartres  or  Etampes  (Ill.  1463,  1464).  It  should  be  observed,  how¬ 
ever,  that  these  canopies  probably  first  originated  in  Spain,  in  ivories 
like  the  San  Isidoro  casket  (Ill.  651-653).^  Certain  capitals  of 
Carrion  and  the  “organ-pipe”  draperies  are  taken  from  the  facade  of 
St.-Trophime  of  Arles  (Ill.  1366-1377).  From  Provence  came  also, 
probably,  the  idea  of  a  sculptured  frieze,  although  the  composition  at 
Carrion  resembles  Ripoll  (Ill.  584,  587)  and  Sangiiesa  (Ill.  748)  more 
closely  than  anything  beyond  the  Pyrenees.  The  bestarred  aureole 
may  have  been  inspired  by  Conques  (Ill.  393).  The  drapery  about 
the  legs  of  the  second  apostle  from  the  left  at  Carrion  (Ill.  722)  is  like 
that  about  the  legs  of  the  Virgin  in  the  cathedral  of  Zamora  (Ill.  740). 
The  voussures  are  derived  from  some  monument  of  Saintonge,  pos¬ 
sibly  Aulnay  (Ill.  979).  Numerous  motives  have  been  taken  from 
Toulouse  and  the  Puerta  de  las  Platerias  (Ill.  674-691). 

1  The  flying  angels  about  the  head  of  the  Virgin  in  this  Annunciation  seem  to  have  been 
copied  at  St.-Jean-le-Vieux  of  Perpignan  (Ill.  6i8). 

2  Such  tortured  draperies  are  already  found  in  a  Carlovingian  ivory  of  the  IX  century  in  the 
British  Museum,  illustrated  by  Dalton,  PI.  XXII,  4.2. 

*  See  what  has  been  said  of  this  motive  above,  p.  45  f. 


LATER  PILGRIMAGE  SCULPTURE 


'-53 


Since  our  sculptor  knew  the  facade  of  St.-Trophime  (Ill.  1366- 
1377),  he  must  have  worked  after  1152.  On  the  other  hand,  he  was 
earlier  than  Mateo.  He  shows  no  knowledge  of  the  Portico  de  la 
Gloria  (Ill.  820-840),  although  he  was  clearly  acquainted  with  the 
earlier  work  at  Santiago  (Ill.  674-691).  The  activity  of  Mateo  must 
have  begun  in  the  early  70’s.  We  may,  therefore,  date  the  Carrion 
frieze  to  c.  1165. 

Aesthetically,  this  is  one  of  the  grand  achievements  of  the  XII  cen¬ 
tury.  Ruined  and  battered  as  it  is,  we  recognize  in  it  immediately 
the  expression  of  a  great  creative  mind.  The  apostles,  especially  to 
the  left,  are  of  superb  contour  and  delicious  rhythm. 

The  much-restored  Christ  of  the  north  portal  of  Lugo  (Ill.  728)  is 
inspired  by  the  Christ  of  Carrion  (Ill.  724). 

The  inferior  and  later  work  at  Mimizan  (Ill.  490,  491)  also  evi¬ 
dently  owes  much  to  Carrion.  Not  only  is  the  motive  of  a  frieze  with 
the  Majestas  Domini  in  the  centre  and  six  apostles  on  either  side 
taken  over  directly  —  for  without  doubt  the  fragments  of  Mimizan 
(Ill.  490,  491)  must  have  formed  precisely  such  a  composition  —  but 
numerous  details  of  the  drawing  of  the  draperies,  the  faces,  the  pos¬ 
ture  of  several  of  the  apostles  as  well.  Mimizan  (Ill.  490,  491)  in  turn 
seems  to  be  related  to  the  north  transept  portal  of  Chartres,  built  by 
the  Spanish  queen,  Blanche  of  Castile.  The  sculptures  of  Mimizan 
were  also  certainly  known  to  the  sculptor  of  the  north  portal  at  St.- 
Benoit-sur-Loire  (Ill.  1519-1527)  who  perhaps  also  saw  Carrion  (Ill. 
722-726).^ 

A  curious  combination  of  influences  is  shown  by  a  capital  coming 
from  Sahagun,  now  at  San  Marcos  of  Leon  (Ill.  768).  The  artist  had 
been  to  Santo  Domingo  de  Silos  and  had  been  impressed  by  the  sculp¬ 
tures  in  the  cloister.  He  combines  heads  copied  from  the  early  work 
of  the  XI  century  (Ill.  671)  with  draperies  taken  from  the  Annun¬ 
ciation  (Ill.  721).  He  must,  therefore,  have  worked  after  1160.  His 
activity  is  doubtless  to  be  connected  with  the  consecration  of  1183. 

^The  tympanum  of  St.-Pierre-le-Moutier  (Ill.  1275)  is  an  evident  copy  of  St.-Benoit-sur- 
Loire  (Ill.  1519,  1520). 


254  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

A  different  set  of  influences  came  to  the  front  in  the  extraordinary 
sculptures  of  Sanguesa  (Ill.  742-754).  The  close  relationship  to  the 
jamb  sculptures  of  Chartres  is  obvious.  The  master  of  the  left-hand 
side  (Ill.  746)  —  he  has  signed  his  name,  Leodegarius  (Leger)  — 
seems,  indeed,  to  have  drawn  his  inspiration  solely  from  Chartres; 
but  the  finer  artist  of  the  right-hand  jamb  (Ill.  743-745)  knew  St.- 
Loup-de-Naud  and  Autun  as  well.  The  head  of  the  central  figure  of 
the  right-hand  jamb  at  Sanguesa  (Ill.  744)  is  like  that  of  the  jamb 
figure  left  of  the  portal  at  St.-Loup  (Ill.  1493).’-  The  sensitively 
modelled  heads  and  the  draperies  of  the  master  of  the  right  jamb  of 
Sanguesa  (Ill.  746)  both  recall  the  Autun  tympanum  (Ill.  80,  81).  In 
the  tympanum  (Ill.  747)  and  upper  part  of  the  fagade  (Ill.  748-754) 
at  Sanguesa  other  hands  are  at  work.  The  Last  Judgment  (Ill.  747) 
of  rudimentary  type  recalls  the  Moissac  tympanum  (Ill.  339),  but  it 
surmounts  a  Virgin  and  Apostles  in  arches  after  the  manner  of  Char¬ 
tres.  The  spandrels  are  filled  with  miscellaneous  bits  of  sculpture, 
some  of  which  show  Lombard  influence ;  the  upper  part  of  the  portal 
with  statues  in  niches  is  inspired  by  Pictave  models.  The  style  of 
certain  of  the  statues  in  niches  is  like  that  of  the  sculptures  flank¬ 
ing  the  shafts  on  the  fagade  of  Civray  (Ill.  1122,  1123,  1125). 
The  all-over  sculpture  of  the  spandrels,  and  in  fact  the  entire  ar¬ 
chitectural  composition,  recall  Notre-Dame-la-Grande  of  Poitiers 
(Ill.  951-962).  The  rows  of  damned  and  blest  in  the  tympanum 
(Ill.  747)  seem  analogous  to  those  of  the  frieze  of  St.-Trophime  (Ill. 

1366,  1375)- 

The  date  of  Sanguesa  is  a  delicate  question.  The  church  was  given, 
it  is  known,  to  St.  John  of  Jerusalem  in  1 132.  It  would  be  natural  to 
suppose  that  the  reconstruction  was  begun  immediately  afterwards. 
The  sculptors  of  the  portals,  however,  knew  Chartres ;  and  it  is  the 
orthodox  belief  that  the  portal  of  Chartres  was  not  begun  until  1145. 
Of  all  the  derivatives  of  Chartres,  Sanguesa  is  by  far  the  most  ar¬ 
chaic;  we  may,  therefore,  assign  the  portal  to  c.  1155. 

^  It  is  just  possible,  however,  that  both  may  be  derived  from  the  work  of  the  head  master  at 
Chartres  —  see  the  figure  to  the  left,  in  Houvet’s  Plate  42. 


LATER  PILGRIMAGE  SCULPTURE 


^55 


The  same  combination  of  widely  divergent  influences  is  character¬ 
istic  of  the  remarkable  sculptures  of  RipolL  Mediaeval  art  has 
created  little  that  is  lovelier  than  certain  passages  of  this  rich  facade 
(Ill.  560-593).  The  jamb  sculptures  (Ill.  572,  573)  must  be  due  to  the 
influence  of  Gilbert  —  his  peculiar  draperies  are  reproduced  in  the 
folds  of  the  leg  of  St.  Paul.  We  also  notice  rinceaux  taken  from 
Nicolb’s  work  at  Sagra  S.  Michele,  voussures  from  St. -Denis,  a  saw¬ 
tooth  moulding  from  Rome,  monsters  from  Lombardy,  drapery  and 
heads  from  the  work  of  Guglielmo.  The  most  significant  analogy, 
however,  is  with  the  bronze  doors  of  Novgorod  in  Russia.  The  simi¬ 
larity  in  the  treatment  of  the  draperies  is  indeed  striking.  That  there 
is  a  direct  connection  does  not  seem  open  to  doubt,  and  in  this  case 
we  are  able  to  guess  at  an  explanation.  The  bronze  doors  of  Nov¬ 
gorod  came  originally  from  Plock  in  Poland.^  Closely  related  doors 
are  those  which  still  exist  at  Gnesen  (Gniezno).  Now  these  Polish 
doors  were  perhaps  actually  manufactured  in  Germany ;  at  any  event 
they  belong  to  the  Teutonic  tradition  of  bronze-casting  which 
centred  at  Hildesheim.  On  the  other  hand,  a  local  tradition,  referred 
to  by  Lamperez  ^  claims  the  fagade  of  Ripoll  as  the  work  of  a  German 
monk.  We  can  therefore  easily  understand  how  the  basis  of  the  art 
of  this  master  was  the  technique  of  the  Saxon  bronze-casters.  We 
can  also  understand  how  in  his  travels  a  multitude  of  foreign  influ¬ 
ences  were  grafted  upon  it. 

Since  our  sculptor  worked  in  Catalonia  it  is  not  surprising  that  he 
absorbed  elements  of  the  local  style.  It  was  perhaps  at  Solsona  that 
he  came  to  know  the  work  of  Gilbert.  Certain  of  his  draperies  (Ill. 
565)  suggest  that  he  had  seen  the  St.  Peter  (Ill.  558)  and  the  St.  Paul 
(Ill.  559)  of  St.-Michel-de-Cuxa.  Others  are  like  those  of  the  Joseph 
in  the  Huesca  Adoration  (Ill.  532).  But  we  can  trace  even  more  ex¬ 
actly  how  the  master  of  Ripoll  absorbed  Catalan  influences.  Sehor 
Pijoan  has  demonstrated  that  in  sculpturing  the  fagade  of  Ripoll  the 
artist  held  in  his  hand  a  Catalan  miniatured  Bible  of  the  X  century 
like  the  Bible  of  Farfa  —  perhaps  that  very  Bible  itself  —  and  trans- 

^  Furmankiewicz,  365.  ^  I,  399. 


256  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

ferred  from  its  pages  to  his  walls  scene  after  scene  with  only  minor 
changes. 

As  for  date,  the  fagade  of  Ripoll  gives  the  impression  of  being  later 
than  Sanguesa,  but  it  must  have  been  executed  before  ii6o. 

San  Miguel  of  Estella  (Ill.  777-785)  is  distinctly  more  advanced. 
The  convention  of  hatching  to  represent  the  feathers  of  the  wings, 
common  in  Spanish  sculpture  of  this  period,  is,  perhaps,  derived  from 
Byzantine  originals  through  ivories  of  the  Ada  group.  The  heads  of 
the  adossed  figures  of  Estella  (Ill.  782,  784)  are  inspired  by  those  of 
the  right  jamb  at  Sanguesa  (Ill.  743-745),  but  are  coarser  and  later. 
Certain  draperies  seem  to  have  been  influenced  by  the  master  of  Car¬ 
rion  (Ill.  722-726).  Others  recall  the  facade  of  St.-Trophime  of  Arles 
(Ill.  1366-1377).  The  prophets  seem  inspired  by  those  of  the  Dau- 
rade  at  Toulouse  (Ill.  474-478).  We  are  evidently  about  1185. 

The  master  of  San  Miguel  of  Estella  worked  also  at  Tudela  (Ill. 
786-791)  and  in  the  cloister  of  Salamanca  (Ill.  775,  776).  Although 
the  Tudela  sculptures  have  been  extravagantly  praised,  they  do  not 
seem,  in  point  of  fact,  to  be  of  extraordinary  merit. 

The  work  at  Armentia  (Ill.  761-767)  is  more  interesting.  This  is 
in  some  ways  the  most  typical  of  all  the  pilgrimage  churches.  Ideas 
are  borrowed  from  everywhere,  and  the  motives  of  other  sculptors 
are  reproduced  with  a  fidelity  that  is  extraordinary. 

A  most  striking  analogy  exists  between  the  relief  of  the  Entomb¬ 
ment  at  Armentia  (Ill.  761)  and  that  representing  the  same  subject 
at  Santo  Domingo  de  Silos  (Ill.  670).  The  composition  of  the  two  is 
the  same.  The  field  in  each  case  is  divided  into  two  halves  by  the 
horizontal  line  formed  by  the  tomb,  on  which  lies  the  body  of  Christ. 
Below  are  the  sleeping  guards  —  an  unusual  addition  to  the  scene  of 
the  Entombment,  found  only  so  far  as  I  know  in  these  two  repre¬ 
sentations.  Above  to  the  right  in  both  reliefs  is  the  group  of  the  three 
Maries;  Joseph  of  Arimathea  and  Nicodemus  bend  over  the  body  of 
Christ,  the  empty  spaces  are  filled  with  angels.  There  can  be  no 
doubt,  therefore,  that  the  composition  of  the  Armentia  relief  was 
directly  taken  over  from  Santo  Domingo.  Indeed,  the  sculptor  of 


LATER  PILGRIMAGE  SCULPTURE 


257 


Armentia  copied  more  than  the  composition  of  his  great  predecessor. 
The  faces  of  his  three  Maries  are  precisely  those  of  the  three  Maries 
of  Santo  Domingo —  the  two  middle  ones  are  so  similar  that  we  might 
easily  take  them  to  be  the  work  of  the  same  hand,  instead  of  sepa¬ 
rated  by  nearly  a  century.  The  wings  of  the  angel  to  the  right  of  the 
Armentia  relief  are  clearly  copied  from  the  wings  of  the  angel  at 
Santo  Domingo.  The  body  of  Christ  at  Armentia  is  a  crude  imitation 
of  the  splendid  body  of  Christ  at  Santo  Domingo.  The  draperies  of 
the  Maries  at  Armentia  are  obviously  inspired  by  the  much  better 
draperies  of  the  corresponding  figures  at  Santo  Domingo.  The  flame¬ 
shaped  pebbles  below  the  sarcophagus  at  Armentia  recall  those  of 
the  Deposition  at  Silos  (Ill.  669). 

How  weak  and  emaciated  is,  however,  the  Armentia  version  com¬ 
pared  with  the  vigour  and  noble  simplicity  of  the  Silos  original !  Nor 
has  the  Armentia  sculptor  been  able  to  avoid  the  introduction  of 
mannerisms  of  his  later  age.  The  round  holes  on  his  sarcophagus 
recall  the  friezes  of  Beaucaire  (Ill.  1298)  and  St.-Gilles  (Ill.  1391); 
the  flying  angels  to  the  left  above  (Ill.  761)  make  us  think  of  the  later 
work  at  Santo  Domingo  (Ill.  721).  The  supporting  figures  (Ill.  761) 
recall  Civray  (Ill.  1128,  1129)  and  St.  Jacob  of  Regensburg. 

But  it  was  not  only  at  Santo  Domingo  de  Silos  that  our  sculptor 
sought  inspiration.  His  adossed  figures  must  come  ultimately  from 
Chartres  —  not  directly,  but  through  some  intermediary  which  I 
can  not  determine ;  ^  the  porch  with  side  reliefs  was  probably  copied 
from  that  of  St.-Martin  of  Brive  (Ill.  353,  354)  which  also  was  sculp¬ 
tured  with  reliefs  representing  the  Harrowing  of  Hell ;  in  the  pen- 
dentives  of  the  dome  tetramorphs  (Ill.  767)  replace  the  angels  of 
Compostela  (Ill.  694,  695) ;  ^  the  tympanum  (Ill.  764,  765)  seems  like 
the  weakest  and  faintest  echo  of  Autun  (Ill.  80,  81) ;  the  Annuncia- 

1  Probably  not  Civray  (Ill.  1122-1131). 

^  The  style  of  the  Santiago  angels  seems  related  to  that  of  Mateo.  To  place  the  evangelists 
in  pendentives  was  in  accordance  with  a  venerable  Byzantine  tradition.  For  the  iconography 
of  the  tetramorphs  see  Bertaux,  Italie  Meridionale,  218.  The  motive  which  originated  in  the 
Orient  at  least  as  early  as  the  VI  century  waa  soon  diffused  in  the  West.  It  is  found,  for  exam¬ 
ple,  in  an  early  Irish  manuscript  —  the  Gospel  of  Kells,  at  Trinity  College,  Dublin  (No.  A.  i.  6 
(58),  fol.  28  ver.  illustrated  by  Zimmermann,  173) ;  in  a  Merovingian  m.anuscript  illustrated  by 


258  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

tion  (Ill.  762)  recalls  the  later  work  in  the  cloisters  of  Santo  Domingo 
de  Silos  (Ill.  721) ;  draperies  are  borrowed  now  from  Arles  (Ill.  1366- 
1377)5  now  from  the  master  of  Carrion  (Ill.  722-726),  now  from 
Chartres ;  a  labarum  and  two  angels  (Ill.  766)  are  like  the  magnifica¬ 
tion  of  an  abacus  in  the  cloister  of  Moissac  (Ill.  282).  Yet  for  all  the 
plagiarism  and  obviously  second-rate  quality  the  sculpture  at  Armen- 
tia  is  far  from  being  despicable.  These  artists  have  known  how  to 
impart  to  their  borrowings  an  atmosphere  of  wistful  tenderness.  We 
return  to  their  works  with  a  pleasure  which  is  surprising  in  view  of 
the  technical  mediocrity. 

The  sculptures  of  Armentia  were  donated  by  the  bishop  of  Cala- 
horra,  D.  Rodrigo  Cascante  (1146-1190).  The  style  indicates  that 
they  were  executed  in  the  later  rather  than  in  the  earlier  part  of  his 
pontificate.  The  work  at  Armentia  seems  about  abreast  of  that  of 
San  Miguel  of  Estella  (Ill.  777-781).  On  the  other  hand  the  sculptors 
do  not  seem  to  have  known  Mateo’s  work  at  Santiago  (Ill.  820-840). 
We  may  infer,  therefore,  that  Armentia  dates  from  about  1180. 

A  typical  monument  of  pilgrimage  art  is,  or  alas  was,  the  church 
of  Ste.-Foy  at  Morlaas  (Ill.  456-460).  A  Cluniac  priory  on  the  road 
and  dedicated  to  the  great  saint  of  Conques,  it  naturally  fell  under 
precisely  the  same  influences  as  the  monuments  beyond  the  Pyrenees. 
The  restoration  of  the  XIX  century  has  unhappily  reduced  the  mag¬ 
nificent  portal  (Ill.  456-460)  to  a  pitiable  state.  What  remains  is,  in- 

Leprieur  in  Michel  I,  i,  314;  in  an  English  Gospel  of  the  XII  century,  illustrated  Burlington, 
PI.  24;  and  in  the  Perikopenbuch  von  St.  Erentrud,  Munich,  Kgl.  Hof-  und  Statsbibliothek, 
Clm  15903,  c.  p.  52;  in  a  capital  of  Moissac,  and  in  two  Beatus  manuscripts. 

It  was  not,  I  think,  as  one  might  be  tempted  to  suppose,  from  the  sculptures  placed  under 
pendentives  like  Conques  (Ill.  388,  389)  and  Santiago  (ill.  694,  695)  that  are  derived  those  of 
the  vaulting  ribs  of  the  Catedral  Vieja  of  Salamanca  (Ill.  736-739).  The  latter  are  much  more 
probably  inspired  from  northern  France.  As  early  as  the  end  of  the  XI  century,  sculptures 
were  placed  flanking  the  vaulting  shafts  at  Airvault  (Ill.  898-900).  At  Bury  these  sculptures 
had  already  been  moved  to  the  base  of  the  ribs.  It  was,  however,  especially  in  the  Loire  valley 
that  the  motive  became  popular;  we  find  it  at  Cormery,  at  Crouzilles,  at  St.-Martin  of  Angers, 
in  the  porch  of  Loches,  at  LaTrinite  of  Vendome  (Ill.  1516-1518).  It  was  from  this  region  that 
the  motive  found  its  way  into  Spain,  to  the  porch  of  San  Martin  of  Segovia,  to  Salamanca  (Ill. 
736-739),  to  Ciudad  Rodrigo  (Ill.  873),  to  the  Portico  de  la  Gloria  at  Santiago  (Ill.  837,  838). 

The  style  of  San  Martin  of  Segovia  resembles  that  of  the  West  in  several  particulars.  The 
jamb  sculptures  (Ill.  755,  756)  are  extraordinarily  close  to  those  of  V^reaux  (Ill.  1479-1481)  a 
monument  which  if  not  situated  in  Poitou  is  still  well  west  of  Burgundy. 


LATER  PILGRIMAGE  SCULPTURE 


259 


deed,  modern.  A  few  fragments  preserved  in  the  local  museum  and 
casts  under  the  rafters  of  the  roof  are  all  that  can  give  an  idea  of  the 
quality  of  what  must  have  been  one  of  the  most  interesting  portals 
of  southern  Europe. 

Light  is  thrown  upon  the  original  character  of  Morlaas  by  a  com¬ 
parison  with  the  portal  of  Ste.-Marie  at  Oloron  (Ill.  461).  This  monu¬ 
ment  has  also  suffered  from  a  reconstruction  almost  as  radical,  but 
some  bits  of  the  ancient  work  have  happily  survived.  Although  the 
restorations  undergone  by  both  monuments  make  any  close  analysis 
of  style  impossible,  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  the  two  are  the 
work  of  the  same  artist.  In  both  two  minor  tympana  are  grouped 
under  a  larger  one.  The  grotesque  figures  in  the  two  archivolts  show 
the  closest  analogies.  The  peculiar  ornament  of  rosette-like  flowers 
is  repeated  in  both  works.  So  also  is  the  moulding  ornamented  with 
a  series  of  little  round  balls.  The  strings  of  the  outer  archivolt  are 
identical  in  the  two  monuments.  In  both  the  figures  are  placed  float¬ 
ing  in  space  as  it  were,  without  the  indication  of  any  support  be¬ 
neath  their  feet. 

A  conspicuous  element  in  the  style  of  both  portals  is  the  evident 
Burgundian  influence.  The  motive  of  twin  portals  with  tympana 
grouped  under  a  larger  tympanum  recalls  Avallon.  It  is  true  that 
twin  portals  are  also  characteristic  of  Santiago ;  and  it  is  certain  that 
our  sculptor  knew  the  work  of  Mateo  and  his  predecessors.  The 
elders  of  Oloron  are  obvious  derivatives  of  those  of  the  Portico  de  la 
Gloria  (Ill.  824-828) ;  and  the  iconography  of  Morlaas  with  Christ 
and  the  evangelists  has  equally  evident  analogies  with  the  Puerta 
Francigena.  But  the  borrowings  of  our  master  from  Burgundy  are 
even  more  patent.  The  Flight  into  Egypt  of  the  right-hand  tym¬ 
panum  of  Morlaas  (Ill.  458)  resembles  vaguely  the  unforgettable 
rendering  of  the  same  theme  at  Bois-Ste.-Marie  (Ill.  142).  The 
adossed  jamb  figures  at  Morlaas  are  placed  high  up,  in  the  Burgun¬ 
dian  manner  (which,  however,  was  also  copied  in  the  Portico  de  la 
Gloria).  The  floating  of  the  figures  in  space  (to  which  attention  has 
already  been  called),  suggests  the  figures  on  the  archivolt  of  Anzy- 


26o  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

le-Duc  (Ill.  96),  The  movement  of  the  angels  in  one  of  the  capitals 
to  the  left  at  Morlaas  (Ill.  460)  is  distinctly  Burgundian.  There  is 
noticeable,  likewise,  the  influence  of  the  master  of  the  southern  porch 
of  St.-Sernin  (Ill.  308-316)  who  also  worked  at  Santiago.  His  are  the 
draperies,  his  the  feet,  his  the  movement  of  the  apostles  at  Morlaas. 
From  Lombardy  came  the  caryatids  of  the  trumeau  of  Morlaas  and 
of  the  voussures  with  the  elders.  The  Morlaas  elders  themselves,  like 
the  figures  of  the  outer  voussures,  all  seated  on  a  roll-moulding,  are 
perhaps  later  derivatives  of  the  north  portal  at  Toro  (Ill.  734)- 
are  clearly  in  the  last  quarter  of  the  XII  century. 

In  the  cloister  of  Oviedo  are  two  curious  reliefs  (Ill.  869,  870),  dat¬ 
ing,  perhaps,  from  about  1200,  representing  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul. 
This  strange  art,  in  which  the  vigorous  archaic  modelling  of  the  dra¬ 
peries  and  bodies  contrasts  so  strangely  with  the  Gothically  immobile 
faces,  reappears  at  Santillana  del  Mar,  where  in  the  cloister  are,  by 
the  same  hand,  a  Virgin  (Ill.  867),  a  Santa  Juliana  with  devil  and  a 
most  impressive  Christ  (Ill.  868).  A  singular  echo  of  the  style  of  this 
pilgrimage  artist  may  be  found  in  the  distant  Capitanata  in  a  relief 
at  Rapolla,  dated  1209.^  The  strange  altar  at  Santillana  (Ill.  861)  is 
of  a  dilfierent,  though  not  unrelated  style ;  and  to  the  same  atelier 
belong  the  capitals  of  the  cloister  (Ill.  862-866).  This  group  of  sculp¬ 
tors  is,  perhaps,  connected  with  Leire  (Ill.  711-716)  on  the  one  hand, 
and  the  Puerta  de  las  Platerias  (Ill.  674-691)  on  the  other. 

The  crude  sculptures  of  San  Quirce  (Ill.  717)  may  be  considered 
another  off-shoot  of  the  pilgrimage  style.  They  are  possibly  distant 
relatives  of  Leire  (Ill.  711-716). 

^  Illustrated  by  Bertaux,  Ital.  Mer.^  517. 


V 


THE  PORTICO  DE  LA  GLORIA 

We  have  now  arrived  at  the  moment  when  there  dawned  in  Spain 
a  third  period  of  sculpture,  unhappily  of  brief  duration,  but  in  some 
respects  even  more  brilliant  than  that  which  opened  the  XII  century. 
This  golden  age  is  ushered  in  by  the  sculptures  of  the  Camara  Santa 
of  Oviedo  (Ill.  811-819).  In  the  dim  light  of  a  small  chapel,  the  fig¬ 
ures  of  supernatural  apostles  are  adossed  two  by  two  against  the 
vaulting-shafts.  An  Egyptian  solemnity  invests  these  sculptures, 
which,  indeed,  unite  the  fervour  and  imagination  of  Spain,  the 
restraint  of  France,  the  delicacy  of  Burgundy,  the  strength  of  Tou¬ 
louse,  with  an  exaltation  that  could  only  be  mediaeval.  In  compari¬ 
son  even  the  Portico  de  la  Gloria  (Ill.  820-840)  seems  coarse  and 
cold.  This,  not  that,  is  the  supreme  master-work. 

Who  was  this  superlatively  gifted  sculptor  ?  I  was  at  one  time 
tempted  to  believe  that  the  Oviedo  Camara  Santa  was  an  early 
work  of  Mateo.  But  the  hypothesis,  seductive  as  it  is,  can  not  be 
held.  Notwithstanding  the  many  analogies,  the  difference  in  style 
is  too  great.  The  Oviedo  master  is  a  comet  which  flashes  with  ex¬ 
traordinary  brilliance  across  the  horizon,  then  disappears.  At  a 
period  when  the  sculptors  of  northern  France  were  listlessly  repeat¬ 
ing  the  time-worn  gospel  of  Chartres ;  when  Provence  was  sinking 
into  such  senility  as  the  tympanum  of  Maguelonne  (Ill.  1384) ;  when 
Benedetto  had  not  yet  awakened  Lombardy  to  new  life;  when  his 
own  compatriots  were  patching  together  works  out  of  stolen  frag¬ 
ments  with  as  little  conscience  as  a  modern  architect  and  as  little 
coherence  as  a  crazy  quilt,  this  unknown  artist  created  out  of  his 
own  genius  a  great  and  a  new  manner.  In  his  work  there  breathes 
the  spirit  rather  than  the  detail  of  the  destroyed  jamb  sculptures  of 
St.-Denis  (Ill.  1445-1457) ;  his  draperies  are  analogous  to  those  of 


262  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

the  Romanesque  tomb  now  incorporated  in  the  north  transept  portal 
of  Reims ;  his  beard  conventions  recall  the  Xl-century  crucifixes  of 
S.  Isidoro  (Ill.  654,703)  and  the  Cutbrecht  Gospels  of  Vienna;^  he 
shows  relationship  to,  perhaps  even  derivation  from,  the  master  of 
Carrion  (Ill.  722-726).  Yet  when  we  have  deduced  from  his  manner 
all  this  and  much  elsewhich  cleverer  eyes  than  mine  will  still  discover, 
we  have  not  plucked  the  heart  of  his  mystery.  A  great  artist  is  always 
incomprehensible.  And  this  sculptor  was  great.  Nothing  in  Tou¬ 
louse,  nothing  in  Languedoc,  nothing  in  Spain  (unless  it  be  Santo 
Domingo  de  Silos),  I  almost  wrote  nothing  in  Europe,  surpasses  the 
apostles  of  Oviedo. 

Mateo  knew  Oviedo,  certainly.  He  knew  much  else  besides.  The 
Christ  of  the  Puerta  de  las  Platerias  (Ill.  676),  which  must  be  part 
of  the  original  doorway,  since  specifically  mentioned  in  the  Guide^ 
exercised  a  profound  influence  upon  Mateo  as,  indeed,  upon  much 
other  work  of  the  XII  century.  Mateo’s  lovely  St.  James  (Ill.  830) 
is  certainly  derived  from  this  model. 

From  Burgundy  Mateo  came  by  his  jamb  sculptures,  raised  above 
the  columns ;  the  great  figure  of  the  Deity  in  the  centre  of  the  tym¬ 
panum,  and  the  figure  on  the  trumeau  below ;  perhaps,  too,  the 
idea  of  a  porch.  From  Lombardy  —  or  was  it  peradventure  Apulia  ? 
—  came  the  portrait  of  the  artist  (Ill.  831),  and  the  monsters  under 
the  columns  (Ill.  832),  the  latter,  perhaps,  by  the  way  of  Provence. 
From  Arles  came,  I  suppose,  the  proportions  of  his  jamb  figures, 
which  seem  to  approach  this  canon  more  closely  than  that  of  north¬ 
ern  France. 

The  result  of  these  influences,  plus  the  genius  of  Mateo,  was  the 
first  work  of  Gothic  sculpture  in  Europe.  Neither  the  Porte-Ste.- 
Anne  of  Paris,  nor  the  jambs  of  Senlis  (Ill.  1508)  foreshadowed  to 
such  an  extent  the  future  development  of  the  style.  It  is  not  too 
much  to  say  that  the  work  of  Mateo  stood  to  the  XIII  century  in 
much  the  same  relationship  as  that  in  which  the  early  school  of  the 
pilgrimages  stood  to  the  XII  century. 

*  Lat.  1224,  fol.  17  b,  illustrated  by  Zimmermann,  297. 


THE  PORTICO  DE  LA  GLORIA 


263 

Little  of  Mateo’s  life  is  known.  We  find  him  at  work  at  Santiago 
in  1168;  twenty  years  later  the  doors  of  the  Portico  de  la  Gloria 
(Ill.  820-840)  were  hung,  so  that  the  sculptures  must  have  been 
essentially  finished  by  this  time.  As  late  as  1217,  however,  he  was 
still  master-builder  at  Compostela. 

The  Portico  de  la  Gloria  is  in  quality  less  fine  than  the  Camara 
Santa  (Ill.  811-819)  of  Oviedo.  This  or  that  detail  has  been  surpassed 
by  this  or  that  master  of  northern  France.  But  for  the  sum  of  the 
impressions  it  remains,  perhaps,  the  most  overwhelming  monument 
of  mediaeval  sculpture. 

Notwithstanding  the  casts  which  were  made  for  the  South  Ken¬ 
sington  Museum,  the  polychromy  is  still  on  the  whole  well  preserved. 
This  singularly  increases  the  realism  of  the  figures.  In  northern 
Europe  the  colouring  of  the  statues  has  usually  been  destroyed ;  but 
one  suspects  that  it  was  never  as  vivid  and  naturalistic  as  that  which 
still  remains  on  Mateo’s  work.  These  figures  are,  indeed,  almost 
startling,  they  seem  so  to  jump  out  at  us ;  their  effect  may  be  com¬ 
pared  to  that  produced  by  certain  Florentine  painters  of  the  Quattro¬ 
cento  such  as  Castagno  or  Pollaiuolo.  Their  existence  is  realized  with 
extraordinary  facility.  They  anticipate  the  naturalism  of  Claus 
Sluter. 

We  have  here  not  the  symbolic  and  dogmatic  art  of  the  Gothic 
cathedrals  of  the  North ;  it  is  much  more  a  good-natured  realism  not 
without  a  streak  of  vulgarity;  an  art  which  would  impress  quickly 
the  passing  crowd  and  required  no  painstaking  study  for  its  appre¬ 
ciation.  In  all  this  it  is  fair  to  see  the  point  of  view  of  the  average 
pilgrim  with  his  interest  in  the  extraordinary,  his  bonhommerie ^  and 
his,  perhaps,  not  over-profound  intellect. 

The  influence  of  the  art  of  Mateo,  as  might  be  expected,  was 
enormous.  The  sculptures  of  the  cathedral  of  Orense  (Ill.  852-859) 
have  long  been  recognized  as  having  been  inspired  by  the  Portico  de 
la  Gloria.  Although  they  are  assuredly  far  from  equalling  their 
original,  they  by  no  means  deserve  the  aspersions  which  it  has  been 
fashionable  to  heap  upon  them.  The  western  portal  of  San  Vicente 


264  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

of  Avila  (Ill.  841-849)  is  one  of  the  best  works  inspired  by  Mateo ;  in 
quality  it  is  indeed  little  if  at  all  below  his  level.  It  seems  here  as  if 
the  Mateo  tradition  had  been  purified  by  fresh  drafts  from  Bur¬ 
gundy.  The  Annunciation  (Ill.  841)  of  the  south  portal,  as  M. 
Bertaux  recognized,  is  by  the  same  hand.  Ciudad  Roderigo  (Ill. 
876-878),  Toro  (Ill.  886-889),  the  portal  of  the  Colegio  San  Jeronimo 
at  Santiago,  may  all  be  considered  as  derivatives  of  the  Portico  de  la 
Gloria.^  Miss  King  recognizes  the  same  influence  at  S.  Julian  of 
Moraime.  Even  as  late  as  1404,  the  sculptor  of  the  portal  of  S. 
Martin  of  Noya  still  repeated  the  types  of  Mateo. 

But  it  was  not  only  in  Spain  that  the  influence  of  Mateo  was  felt. 
His  art,  as  little  as  that  of  his  predecessors,  found  in  the  Pyrenees  a 
barrier. 

The  sculptors  of  Bamberg  sought  inspiration  from  Mateo.  It  has 
been  much  discussed  whether  the  apostles  and  prophets  of  the  choir- 
screen  are  derived  from  Saxony,  from  Byzantine  tradition,  or  from 
Toulouse.  It  is  probable  that  the  sculptor  was  acquainted  not  only 
with  Saxony  and  the  sculptures  of  St.-Etienne  (Ill.  434-443)  and 
Cahors  (Ill.  422-429),  but  also  with  the  jamb  sculptures  of  Santiago 
(Ill.  820-840).  His  Isaiah  ^  is  reminiscent  of  the  prophet  to  the  left 
of  the  left-hand  doorway  at  Santiago  (Ill.  820).  This  Compostelan 
prophet  seems,  indeed,  to  have  inspired  the  facial  type  of  the  school 
of  Bamberg.  The  Bamberg  sculptors  were  also  influenced  by  the 
Daniel  of  Santiago  (Ill.  829  b).  The  Hosea  ®  of  Bamberg  is  mani¬ 
festly  inspired  by  this  model  of  which  it  reproduces  even  the  curls. 
The  Bamberg  “smile”  may  as  well  be  derived  from  Santiago  direct, 
as  via  Reims. 

Internal  evidence,  therefore,  justifies  the  inference  that  the  mas¬ 
ter  of  Bamberg  had  been  to  Compostela.  Now  there  is  external  proof 
that  he  had  been  to  Palestine.  He  has  sculptured  his  own  portrait  in 
the  tympanum  of  the  Gnadetiir.  On  the  sleeve  of  his  coat  may 
clearly  be  seen  a  cross,  indicating  that  he  had  made  the  pilgrimage  to 

^  See  Buschbeck,  48  f. 

^  Illustrated  by  Weese,  5.  It  is  the  prophet  holding  a  saw,  next  to  the  David. 

*  Illustrated  by  Weese,  4, 


THE  PORTICO  DE  LA  GLORIA  265 

the  Holy  Land.  We  are  probably  justified  in  assuming  that,  like  so 
many  others,  he  combined  this  journey  with  that  to  Santiago. 

It  was,  however,  in  France  that  the  work  of  Mateo  proved  most 
fecund.  His  St.  James  on  the  central  trumeau  of  Santiago  (Ill.  830) 
is  the  ancestor  of  the  Beaux  Dieux  of  Chartres  and  Amiens.  The 
great  porches  of  Chartres  were,  perhaps,  inspired  by  Mateo’s  Portico 
de  la  Gloria,  which,  as  originally  built,  must  have  produced  a  not 
dissimilar  effect.  It  is  certain  that  the  masters  of  Chartres  had 
studied  Santiago.  The  head  of  the  Queen  of  Sheba  of  the  north  por¬ 
tal  of  Chartres  ^  reproduces  exactly  the  head  of  the  queen  on  the  outer 
respond  of  the  Portico  de  la  Gloria  (Ill.  839).  The  torso  of  a  jamb 
sculpture  from  Notre-Dame  of  Paris,  now  in  the  Musee  de  Cluny,^ 
reproduces,  line  for  line  and  stroke  for  stroke,  the  corresponding 
portions  of  the  Daniel  of  Santiago  (Ill.  829).  The  elders  now  in  the 
Musee  Archeologique  of  Montpellier  ^  (Ill.  1400-1402)  and  said,  I 
know  not  on  what  authority,  to  come  from  St.-Guilhem-le-Desert, 
are  evident  copies  of  the  voussure  sculptures  of  the  Portico  de  la 
Gloria  (Ill.  824-828). 

In  Switzerland  we  find  the  Portico  de  la  Gloria  accurately  copied 
in  the  cathedral  of  Lausanne ;  ^  the  apostles  of  the  Munster  at  Basle 
owe  their  draperies  to  the  same  original.^  In  England,  as  Mssrs. 
Prior  and  Gardner  have  recognized,  the  celebrated  statues  of  York 
repeat  the  models  of  Mateo.® 

The  sculptors  of  Reims  sought  inspiration  at  Santiago.  The 
statue  of  Daniel,  on  the  left  jamb  of  the  Portico  de  la  Gloria  (Ill. 
829,  829  b)  determined  the  type  which  gives  the  school  of  Reims  its 
peculiar  and  unforgettable  character.  It  is  the  influence  of  archaic 
Santiago  that  lifts  Reims  above  the  classicism  and  monotony  of  the 
work  at  Amiens  or  the  south  portal  of  Chartres.  Everywhere  through 
the  cathedral  of  Reims  echoes  and  re-echoes  the  theme  of  the  Daniel 
of  Santiago,  but  varied  and  beautified.  We  recognize  it  in  the  angels 


'  Illustrated  by  Houvet,  41. 

^14  rue  Eugene  Lisbonne. 

®  Illustrated  by  Lindner,  Taf.  VIII. 


^Photograph  by  Stoedtner,  No.  130058. 
^  Illustrated  by  Michel,  II,  i,  196. 

®  See  Prior  and  Gardner,  214. 


266  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

of  the  buttresses,  in  the  angel  of  the  Annunciation  (829  a),  almost 
unaltered  in  the  Sourire^  embellished  and  transposed,  but  still  unmis¬ 
takable  in  the  Joseph^  in  the  Anna^  in  the  ^ueen  of  Sheba,  in  the 
Solomon,  in  the  caryatid  of  the  west  fagade,  in  the  angels  of  the 
Coronation^  The  smile  of  Reims  is  indeed  as  old  as  archaic  Greece 
and  as  young  as  the  Mona  Lisa.  It  had  lurked  upon  the  lips  of  num¬ 
berless  Buddhas  before  it  alighted  on  those  of  the  angels  of  Mono- 
poli  (Ill.  158).  It  continued  to  fascinate  the  sculptors  and  ivory- 
carvers  of  the  XIV  century. 

It  is,  I  think,  admitted  by  competent  critics  that  the  sculptures  of 
Reims  show  German  influence.  It  has  not,  however,  so  far  as  I  am 
aware,  been  remarked  that  the  head  of  a  prophet  about  the  rose  of 
the  south  transept  ^  reproduces  the  Jonah  of  the  Bamberg  choir- 
screen.^  The  Reims  figure,  I  think,  must  be  a  work  of  that  sculptor 
of  the  second  atelier  at  Bamberg,  who  has  been  suspected  on  inde¬ 
pendent  grounds  of  having  been  connected  first  with  the  earlier 
atelier  at  Bamberg,  then  with  Reims  (where  he  shows  himself  espe¬ 
cially  familiar  with  the  transepts)  before  being  called  to  direct  the 
second  Bamberg  atelier.  I  detect,  indeed,  his  hand  at  Reims  also  in 
an  angel  of  a  buttress  of  the  south  fagade.^  The  suspicion  arises  that  it 
may  have  been  this  master  who  fetched  the  smile  of  Mateo’s  Daniel 
from  Santiago  and  handed  it  on  to  the  “  Joseph  master  ”  of  Reims. 

However  this  may  be,  the  debt  of  the  sculptors  of  Reims  to  San¬ 
tiago  does  not  end  with  the  smile.  Other  facial  types  appear  to  be 
derived  from  the  same  original.  More  than  this,  the  Reims  sculptors 
owe  to  Santiago  one  of  their  happiest  innovations.  At  Chartres,  at 
Amiens,  at  Senlis,  in  all  the  older  northern  French  portals,  the  jamb 
figures  stand  in  rigid  rows,  facing  nearly  or  quite  stark  outwards. 
Mateo  had  animated  his  (Ill.  829,  834) ;  they  turn  as  if  to  talk  with 
one  another.  Now  this  motive  of  Mateo’s  is  reproduced  at  Reims. 

*  All  these  sculptures  are  reproduced  by  Vitry. 

^  Illustrated  by  Vitry,  II,  PI.  LVII. 

^  Illustrated  by  Weese,  II,  4 

^  Illustrated  by  Vitry,  II,  PI.  LXVIII. 


VI 


ST.-GILLES 

We  are  fortunate  in  being  able  to  commence  our  study  of  the 
Provengal  school  with  a  dated  monument.  The  sculptured  altar  of 
St.  Cannate  and  St.  Antonin  in  the  Cathedrale  Ancienne  at  Marseille 
(Ill.  1283,  1284)  seems  to  have  escaped  the  attention  of  those  who 
have  written  upon  the  controverted  subject  of  southern  French 
Romanesque.  Yet  this  monument  contains  the  solution  of  nearly  all 
the  difficulties,  for  it  was  erected  in  1122.^ 

The  style  is  singularly  archaic  in  the  draperies,  singularly  ad¬ 
vanced  in  the  facial  types.  The  sagging  folds  in  the  middle  of  the 
skirt  of  St.  Cannate  are  more  finely  executed,  but  essentially  like 
those  of  one  of  the  figures  flanking  the  vaulting  shafts  of  the  church 
at  Airvault  (Ill.  899),  a  monument  consecrated  in  iioo.  The  side 
folds  also  recall  the  same  model.  Indeed,  it  is  probable  that  these 
draperies  show  that  there  was  already  an  influence  of  the  school  of 
the  West  in  Provence.  The  facial  types  on  the  other  hand  seem  to 
foreshadow  much  later  work.  That  of  the  Virgin  is  closely  analogous 
to  Gilbert’s  Virgin  at  Solsona  (Ill.  552). 

This  Virgin  of  the  Marseille  altar  seems,  indeed,  to  have  exerted  a 
peculiar  influence  upon  monuments  of  the  fifth  decade  of  the  XII 
century.  It  apparently  was  the  original  from  which  was  derived  the 
Virgin  of  the  south  tympanum  at  Chartres.  When  we  place  these 
two  sculptures  beside  each  other,  we  perceive  that  the  composition 
is  th^  same  in  both.  In  both  the  Virgin  is  seated  on  a  throne;  in 
both  she  holds  the  Child  square  in  the  middle  of  her  lap ;  in  both  the 
Child’s  feet  hang  stiffly  down  below  the  bottom  of  His  draperies ;  in 

^  Caeteras  SS.  Cannati  et  Antonini  Reliquias,  clero  prius  populoque  palam  ostensas,  decenti 
arcae  inclusit  Raymundus  Massiliensis  episcopus  anno  1122  die  Assumptae  in  coelo  Virgini 
Mariae  sacro,  cujus  quidem  rei  ex  Archivis  ecclesiae  Massiliensis  Henricus  de  Belzance  sequens 
testimonium  exhibet,  etc.  {Acta  Sanctorum,  15  October  VII,  i,  20.) 


268  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

both  the  Virgin’s  feet  emerge  stiffly  below  hers  ;  the  left  hand  of  the 
Virgin  in  both  is  held  in  the  same  position ;  the  right  hand  of  Christ 
was  in  both  raised  in  blessing ;  the  facial  type  of  the  Virgin  is  in  both 
the  same ;  the  crown  of  the  Virgin  has  in  both  the  same  form ;  the 
face  of  the  Christ  Child  is  in  both  the  same ;  there  is  even  a  certain 
similarity  in  the  draperies,  although  those  of  Marseille  are  obviously 
more  archaic.  It  appears,  therefore,  that  the  Master  of  the  Angels, 
when  he  sculptured  the  southern  tympanum  of  Chartres,  set  the 
Virgin  of  Marseille  under  the  canopy  of  Beaucaire  and  added  a  pair 
of  Burgundian  angels. 

The  advanced  facial  types  of  the  Marseille  area  recall  the  fact  that 
the  school  of  Provence  was  distinguished  for  the  naturalism  of  its 
faces  as  early  as  the  XI  century,  as  is  witnessed  by  the  tomb  of  St. 
Isarne  of  1048  (Ill.  1278). 

In  the  portal  of  the  cathedral  of  Maguelonne  constructed  in  1178  ^ 
(as  recorded  in  verses  by  the  celebrated  troubadour  Bernard  de 
Treviis  inscribed  upon  it)  ^  are  incorporated  earlier  fragments  of 
sculpture.  These  consist  of  the  crouching  forms  of  St.  Peter  (Ill. 
1287)  ^rid  St.  Paul  (Ill.  1288),  obviously  fragments  of  a  tympanum, 
and  two  consoles  (Ill.  1285,  1286).  It  is  a  curious  fact  that  the  faces 
of  the  tympanum  sculptures  are  repeated  on  the  consoles.  Evidently 
then  the  consoles  also  represent  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul. 

The  style  of  these  figures  at  Maguelonne  (Ill.  1285-1288)  does  not 

seem  to  be  closely  related  to  that  of  the  Marseille  altar  (Ill.  1283, 

1284).  x'^t  Marseille  we  found  advanced  faces  and  archaic  draperies; 

at  Maguelonne  the  draperies  seem  more  developed  than  the  faces. 

Yet  there  are  similarities  between  the  two  works.  There  is  the  same 

peculiar  little  spiral  in  the  draperies  on  the  right  shoulder  of  the 

Marseille  St.  Cannate  (Ill.  1283)  and  on  the  right  shoulder  of  the 

Maguelonne  St.  Paul  (Ill.  1288).  The  grooving  of  the  draperies 

j  t  AD  PORTV  VITE :  SITIENTES  QVIQ  VENITE : 

HAS  INTRANDO  FORES;  VESTROS  COMPONITE  MORES: 

HINC  INTRANS  ORA  TVA  SEP(ER)  CRIMIfNA  PLORA: 

QVICQD  PECCATVR:  LACRIMA(RV]Vp  FONTE  LAVATVR  t 
BD’  III  VIIS  FECIT  HOC  f  ANO  INC  D’.  MCLXXVIII 
^  See  Joubin. 


ST.-GILLES 


269 

about  this  shoulder  of  the  Marseille  St.  Cannate  (Ill.  1283)  resembles 
the  grooving  in  the  skirts  of  the  right  thigh  of  the  Maguelonne  Sl 
Paul  (Ill.  1288).  The  facial  types  are  not  without  affinity,  although 
Marseille  is  finer.  In  both  there  is  the  same  bald  handling,  the  same 
love  of  broad  surfaces,  the  same  tendency  towards  conventionali¬ 
zation. 

A  closer  parallel  to  the  fragments  of  Maguelonne  is  to  be  found  in 
the  lunettes  of  Angouleme.  This  cathedral  we  shall  see  was  begun  in 
1 1 10  and  finished  about  1128.  The  composition  of  the  lunettes  (Ill. 
936-940)  with  two  crouching  figures  at  the  ends,  and  a  third  figure 
between  them,  is  precisely  the  composition  of  the  Maguelonne  tym¬ 
panum  (Ill.  1287,  1288).  Moreover,  when  we  compare  the  draperies 
of  the  right  thigh  of  the  Maguelonne  St.  Paul  (Ill.  1288)  with  those 
between  the  legs  of  the  central  figure  in  the  Angouleme  lunette 
(Ill.  938)  we  see  that  there  is  a  similar  division  into  strands  ending  in 
a  curve  which  is  like  a  Greek  fret  made  very  rapidly.  Again,  there¬ 
fore,  we  feel  the  influence  of  the  school  of  the  West  upon  Provence. 

This  crouching  attitude  is  very  characteristic  of  sculptures  of  the 
first  quarter  of  the  XII  century.  We  find  it,  for  example,  in  the 
bronze  doors  of  Rogerius,  made  for  the  mausoleum  of  Bohemond  at 
Canosa,  a  dated  monument  of  1111-1118,  in  the  figures  just  below 
Christ,  variously  explained  as  princes,  or  as  personages  of  the  Trans¬ 
figuration.^ 

The  tympanum  of  San  Pablo  al  Campo  of  Barcelona,  a  church 
consecrated  in  1125,  has  precisely  the  same  composition  which  must 
have  existed  at  Maguelonne.  In  the  centre  is  Christ  (Ill.  550) ;  at  the 
ends  the  two  crouching  figures  of  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul.  The  simi¬ 
larity  does  not,  however,  extend  to  the  style ;  the  draperies  of  the 
Barcelona  sculptures  impress  one  as  much  more  advanced  than 
those  of  Maguelonne  (Ill.  1285-1288). 

The  Maguelonne  fragments  also  present  points  of  contact  with  the 
ambulatory  sculptures  of  St.-Sernin  (Ill.  296-305)  which  date  from 

^  This  attitude  is  found  as  early  as  980  in  the  figure  of  St.  Paul  in  a  miniature  of  the  Bene- 
dictional  of  St.  Aethelwold  at  Chatsworth,  of  the  school  of  Winchester,  illustrated  by  Warner 
and  Wilson,  /.  96. 


270  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

about  1105.  There  is  the  same  love  of  polished  surfaces,  the  same 
brutality  of  treatment,  the  same  vigour.  Maguelonne  is,  however, 
patently  later.  The  faces  are  more  characterized,  and  indicated  in 
more  detail ;  there  is  more  movement  —  in  this  respect  Maguelonne 
is  abreast  of  the  tympanum  of  St.-Sernin  (Ill.  308-317);  —  the 
draperies  are  far  more  developed  and  more  naturalistic. 

From  all  this  we  conclude  that  the  fragments  of  Maguelonne  must 
be  considerably  later  than  1105  and  somewhat  earlier  than  1125.  We 
may  ascribe  them  to  c.  1120  with  confidence.  They,  without  doubt, 
belonged  to  the  choir  of  the  cathedral  built  by  the  bishop  Galterius 
(1110-1133).^  In  1178,  they  were  incorporated  in  the  reconstruction 
of  the  bishop  Jean  II  de  Montlaur  (i  159-1  i9o).2 

The  next  monument  shows  a  most  notable  development.  It  is  the 
area  (Ill.  1289,  1290)  of  St.-Hilaire,  first  bishop  of  Carcasonne,  now 
preserved  in  the  church  of  the  town  of  the  same  name. 

The  form  of  this  sarcophagus  shows  the  evident  copying  of  a  Ro¬ 
man  model ;  it  is  the  earliest  example  in  Provence  of  that  classic  in¬ 
fluence  which  has  been  so  widely  remarked  in  the  sculpture  of  the 
school.  I  suspect  that  this  may  first  have  come  in  through  the  copy¬ 
ing  of  an  antique  sarcophagus  in  an  area  precisely  like  this  one  at 
St.-Hilaire.  Our  sculptor  without  question  owed  much  to  his  antique 
original.  He  preserved,  however,  his  own  tradition.  The  draperies 
indicated  by  angular  grooves  (Ill.  1289,  1290)  are  a  development  of 
those  we  have  already  observed  about  the  legs  and  in  the  girdle  of 
the  St.  Paul  of  Maguelonne  (Ill.  1288).  The  violent  movement  came 
from  the  same  source.  It  is  also  certain  that  our  sculptor  held  in  his 
hand  a  Byzantine  ivory.  His  facial  types  are  peculiar,  and  without 
relation  to  others  that  I  know  in  sculpture.  The  forehead  is  low,  the 
eye-brow  deeply  arched,  the  nose  sharp,  the  eye  of  a  peculiar  pointed 
oval  type.  Now  precisely  such  faces  are  found  in  a  Byzantine  ivory 
casket  of  the  XI  century  in  the  Museo  Kirchiano  at  Rome.^ 

'  Galterius  caput  ecclesie  Magalonensis  ruinosum  fulcivit  {cit.  Mortet,  90). 

^  Videns  ecclesiam  ruinam  minari,  .  .  .  eccelesia  vetus  demolita  est  et  nova  ex  majori  parte 
constructa  {ibid,,  91). 

®  Illustrated  by  Graeven,  II,  59. 


ST.-GILLES 


271 


The  area  of  St. -Hilaire  is  evidently  much  more  advanced  than  the 
fragments  of  Maguelonne  (Ill.  1285-1288).  Since  the  latter  we  have 
seen  must  date  from  about  1120,  St.-Hilaire  may  be  ascribed  to  c. 
1130. 

The  celebrated  frieze  at  Beaucaire  (Ill.  1292-1298)  is  related  to 
the  St.-Hilaire  area  (Ill.  1289,  1290).  The  draperies  in  both  cases  are 
formed  on  the  same  system  of  angular  grooving.  There  is  the  same 
tendency  to  cover  the  entire  surface  with  these  grooves.  Beaucaire 
is  the  logical  culmination  of  the  method  of  design  inaugurated  at 
Maguelonne  (Ill.  1285-1288).  The  relationship  of  Beaucaire  and  St.- 
Hilaire  is,  moreover,  witnessed  by  a  similarity  of  spirit;  both  works 
are  vigorous  and  determined,  full  of  movement  and  naturalism. 

It  is  therefore  entirely  probable  that  the  Beaucaire  sculptor  came 
out  of  the  same  atelier  as  the  one  of  St.-Hilaire,  or  at  least  from  one 
closely  allied.  His  style  was,  however,  deeply  influenced  by  the  work 
of  the  Flagellation  Master  at  Santiago  (Ill.  680).  In  fact,  if  we  put 
the  Christ  at  the  Column  of  Beaucaire  (Ill.  1297)  beside  the  render¬ 
ing  of  the  same  subject  at  Compostela  (Ill.  680),  we  shall  perceive 
how  much  the  Beaucaire  sculptor  owes  to  this  source.  The  two 
Christs  are  in  fact  strikingly  alike.  The  right  arm  is  held  in  the  same 
position,  there  is  the  same  too  large  head,  the  expression  is  the  same, 
the  features  are  of  the  same  cast,  the  hair  falls  down  the  back  in  the 
same  manner,  the  two  loin-cloths  are  alike  even  to  the  knot  in  front. 
It  is  evident  that  the  Beaucaire  rendering  is  more  naturalistic,  more 
brutal.  The  hair  and  face  are  more  realistic.  The  Santiago  Christ 
is  more  refined,  more  restrained,  more  sensitive,  more  archaic. 

It  is  probable  that  the  Beaucaire  Master  took  over  not  only  this 
figure  of  Christ  from  the  Puerta  de  las  Platerias.  Unfortunately  both 
series  of  reliefs  are  fragmentary.  In  each  probably  was  represented 
at  length  the  story  of  the  Passion,^  but  it  so  happens  that  Christ  at 
the  Column  is  the  only  subject  which  has  been  preserved  in  both. 


^  It  is  true  that  the  missing  scenes  at  Santiago  are  not  mentioned  in  the  Guide.  They  may 
well,  nevertheless,  have  existed.  The  sculptured  cycles  were  doubtless  originally  inspired  by 
some  miniature,  like  that  of  the  cathedral  of  Auxerre. 


272  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

When  we  see  how  exactly  the  Beaucaire  Master  has  taken  over  this 
one  figure,  we  can  hardly  doubt  that  the  entire  frieze  of  Beaucaire 
was  little  more  than  a  transcription  of  the  reliefs  at  Santiago.  We  are 
confirmed  in  this  conjecture  by  observing  that  the  cross  which  is  seen 
in  the  hands  of  an  executioner  at  Santiago  (Ill.  680)  is  precisely  like 
the  cross  which  is  carried  by  Christ  at  Beaucaire  (Ill.  1297,  1289). 

The  tympanum  of  Beaucaire,  of  which  the  Virgin  (the  subject 
represented  was  the  Adoration  of  the  Magi)  still  survives  (Ill.  1299) 
was  certainly  not  by  the  master  of  the  frieze.  The  long  straight  folds 
of  the  drapery,  the  attenuation,  the  finer  quality,  show  a  very  differ¬ 
ent,  and  much  superior,  touch.  These  “  organ-pipe  ”  draperies  must 
be  derived  from  the  Christ  of  the  Puerta  de  las  Platerias  (Ill.  676). 
In  fact,  the  master  of  the  Beaucaire  tympanum  was  clearly  well 
acquainted  with  Compostela.  His  composition  is  evidently  inspired 
by  the  eastern  tympanum  of  the  Puerta  de  las  Platerias  (Ill.  680). 
Here,  in  fact,  we  have  the  same  subject  similarly  placed  in  a  tympa¬ 
num  ;  the  Virgin  is  seated  precisely  as  at  Beaucaire ;  the  Child  is 
seated  in  the  same  way  on  her  left  knee ;  her  left  hand  touches  His 
elbow  in  exactly  the  same  manner;  even  the  folds  of  drapery  about 
her  neck  are  the  same.  The  tympanum  of  Beaucaire  was  a  reproduc¬ 
tion  of  the  tympanum  of  Santiago,  plus  the  draperies  of  the  Santiago 
Christ,  and  plus  certain  other  new  features. 

The  latter,  I  think,  were  probably  derived  from  a  Byzantine 
ivory  Madonna  of  the  XI  century  of  the  well-known  type  of  which 
there  is  an  example  in  the  Metropolitan  Museum  at  New  York.^ 
Here  we  find  draperies  which  might  have  given  to  the  Beaucaire 
Virgin  everything  which  the  Santiago  Christ  did  not  supply.  The 
general  type  is  strikingly  analogous  to  that  of  the  Beaucaire  Virgin. 
There  is  the  same  attenuation,  the  same  thin  hands,  the  Child’s  head 
is  set  on  the  body  in  the  same  jerky  way,  the  Child’s  right  hand  is 
similarly  extended,  the  Virgin’s  right  hand  is  in  the  same  position, 
her  feet  are  similarly  treated.  The  distinctive  feature  of  the  Beau¬ 
caire  tympanum  is  the  introduction  of  a  canopy  over  the  Virgin.  It 
*  Illustrated  in  Art  in  America,  1922,  X,  198. 


ST.-GILLES 


273 


was  this  which  seems  to  have  particularly  struck  contemporary 
sculptors,  and  was,  as  we  have  seen,^  frequently  reproduced.  Now 
this  motive  of  a  canopy  must  certainly  have  come  from  Byzantine 
ivories,  in  which  the  motive  is  frequent.  There  may,  in  fact,  very 
well  have  been  just  such  a  canopy  over  the  New  York  Madonna, 
since  the  background  of  the  figure,  which  once  existed,  has  been 
broken  away. 

The  much  finer  quality  of  the  work  in  the  tympanum  of  Beau- 
caire  might  make  us  suppose  it  later  than  the  frieze.  There  is,  how¬ 
ever,  proof  that  the  two  are  contemporary.  In  the  scene  of  the  Maries 
buying  spices  the  sculptor  of  the  frieze  has  copied  the  draperies  of 
the  Master  of  the  Tympanum.  The  skirts  of  these  three  figures 
(Ill.  1298)  are  evidently  reproductions  of  those  of  the  Virgin  (Ill. 
1299). 

The  date  of  Beaucaire  may  be  determined  from  the  circumstances 
that  the  frieze  is  later  than  St.-Hilaire  (c.  1130)  and,  as  we  shall 
presently  see,  earlier  than  St.-Gilles  which  dates  from  about  1140. 
We  shall  therefore  not  risk  falling  into  serious  error  if  we  assign  it  to 

1135. 

Several  hands  may  be  distinguished  in  the  sculptures  of  the  fagade 
of  St.-Gilles  (Ill.  1302-1328). 

By  the  first,  whom  I  shall  venture  to  designate  as  the  Angouleme 
Master,  is  the  St.  Thomas  (Ill.  1304),  the  podium  reliefs  representing 
the  Sacrifice  of  Cain  and  Abel  (Ill.  1325)  and  the  Murder  of  Abel 
(Ill.  1324)  and  the  relief  under  the  columns  representing  David  and 
Goliath  (Ill.  1326).  This  sculptor  also,  I  think,  touched  up  some  of 
the  draperies  of  the  St.  'James  the  Less  (Ill.  1305)  by  the  Third 
Master. 

The  Angouleme  Master  has  usually  been  considered  Toulousan 
for  no  better  reason  than  that  the  legs  of  the  St.  Thomas  (Ill.  1304)  are 
crossed.  There  can,  however,  be  little  doubt  that  he  really  came 
from  the  West.  If  we  compare  the  St.  Thomas  with  the  lunettes  of 

^  See  above,  p.  245  f.  The  canopy  was  also  copied  in  the  tympana  of  the  cathedral  of  Valence 
fill.  1189)  and  Notre-Dame-du-Port  of  Clermont-Ferrand  (ill.  1158). 


274  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

the  cathedral  at  Angouleme  (Ill.  936-940),  we  shall  at  once  perceive 
that  the  two  works  are  characterized  by  the  same  movement,  the 
same  draperies,  the  same  technical  peculiarities.  At  St.-Gilles,  how¬ 
ever,  the  style  is  notably  more  advanced  and  exaggerated. 

The  relief  of  David  and  Goliath  (Ill.  1326)  may  be  compared  with 
a  capital  representing  the  same  subject  at  Notre-Dame-de-la-Couldre 
ofParthenay  (Ill.  1045). 

It  is  certain  that  this  master,  like  the  sculptors  of  Angouleme,  fell 
under  the  strong  influence  of  miniatures.  The  relief  of  the  Sacrifice  of 
Cain  and  Abel  (Ill.  1325)  for  example,  shows  unmistakable  indica¬ 
tions  of  having  been  inspired  by  this  source.^  The  ideas  may  well 
indeed  have  come  to  our  sculptor  from  the  X-century  Bible  of  St.- 
Aubin  of  Angers.^  The  sculptors  of  Angouleme  also  fell  under  the 
spell  of  manuscripts.  The  resemblance  between  Angouleme  and 
St.-Gilles  is,  however,  much  greater  than  can  be  accounted  for  by  a 
common  manuscript  source.  If  we  compare  the  apostle  to  the  right 
of  the  lunette  to  the  south  of  the  portal  at  Angouleme  (Ill.  938)  with 
the  Cain  in  the  St.-Gilles  Sacrifice  (Ill.  1325),  we  shall  be  convinced 
that  the  St.-Gilles  artist  knew  the  work  at  Angouleme. 

The  second  hand  which  may  be  distinguished  at  St.-Gilles  is  that 
of  the  sculptor  Brunus.  His  signature  may  be  read  near  the  statue  of 
St.  Matthew  (Ill.  1302).®  The  St.  Bartholomew  (Ill.  1303)  which  is 
the  next  statue  to  the  south  shows  a  style  identical  with  that  of  the 
St.  Matthew  (Ill.  1302) ;  it  also,  therefore,  must  be  by  the  hand  of 
Brunus.  The  four  statues  flanking  the  central  portal  —  St.  Peter 
(Ill.  1308,  1309),  St.  John  (Ill.  1306,  1307),  St.  Paul  (Ill.  1311)  and 
St.  James  the  Less  (Ill.  1310)  —  are  notably  more  advanced  in  style, 
but  are  also  by  the  hand  of  Brunus.  As  this  has  been  generally  ad- 

*  See,  for  example,  St.  Gallen,  Stiftsbibliothek,  Cod.  902,  illustrated  by  Merton,  PI.  IL  and 
L,  No.  2;  Perikopenbuch  von  St.  Erentrud  of  Munich,  Kgl.  Hof-  und  Stadtsbibliothek,  Clm. 
^5903)  c.  p.  52,  illustrated  by  Swarzenski,  No.  200;  Bamberg  Apocalypse,  ed.  Wollflin;  minia¬ 
ture  of  Christ  before  Pilate  in  Perikopenbuch  Kaiser  Heinrichs  II,  Reichenau  school  before 
1014,  illustrated  by  Leidinger,  V,  18;  or  the  draperies  of  a  bed-cover  in  a  miniature  of  an  Eng¬ 
lish  manuscript  of  the  XII  century,  Brit.  Mus.  MS.  37472,  No.  i. 

^  Compare  the  Christ  illustrated  by  Boinet,  PI.  CLII.  The  manuscript  is  preserved  in  the 
Bibliotheque  de  la  Ville  at  Angers,  No.  4. 

3  BRVNVS  ME  FECIT. 


ST.-GILLES 


275 


mitted  by  the  critics,  and  as  the  reader  has  the  photographs  under 
his  eyes,  it  is  unnecessary  to  weary  him  with  a  repetition  of  the 
reasoning  which  leads  to  the  attribution. 

These  works  show  an  extraordinary  variation  of  style.  If  we  should 
try  to  place  them  in  chronological  order,  we  should  have  to  arrange 
the  series:  St.  Matthew  (Ill.  1302),  St.  Bartholomew  (Ill.  1303),  St. 
James  the  Less  (Ill.  1310),  St.  Peter  (Ill.  1308,  1309),  St.  Paul  (Ill. 
13 1 1)  and  St.  John  (Ill.  1306,  1307). 

Brunus  worked  not  only  at  St.-Gilles.  The  sculptures  of  the  portal 
of  Romans  (Ill.  1334,  1335)  have  been  recognized  to  be  by  his  hand. 
These  are  evidently  the  latest  of  the  series. 

We  have,  therefore,  not  a  few  works  through  which  we  can  trace 
the  growth  of  this  artistic  personality.  In  the  St.  Matthew  (Ill.  1302) 
we  find  him  gruff,  coarse  and  heavy.  The  folds  of  the  undergarment 
over  the  chest  show  the  unmistakable  influence  of  the  school  of  the 
pilgrimage  —  compare  for  example  the  David  of  Santiago  (Ill.  687). 
These  folds  are  much  modified  in  the  St.  Bartholomew  (Ill.  1303) ;  but 
in  the  later  works  they  are  no  longer  found.  There  are,  however,  even 
in  the  later  works,  numerous  reminiscences  of  the  pilgrimage  school. 
The  peculiar  series  of  tight-clinging  folds  like  metal  rings,  in  which 
terminates  the  right  sleeve  of  the  St.  Bartholomew  of  St.-Gilles  (Ill. 
1303)5  is  precisely  the  same  mannerism  as  that  which  is  found  in  the 
right  sleeve  of  the  Christ  at  Santiago  (Ill.  676).  The  lower  skirts  of 
the  draperies  of  the  St.  Bartholomew  (Ill.  1303)  and  especially  of  the 
St.  John  (Ill.  1307)  at  St.-Gilles  are  certainly  derived  from  the  skirts 
of  the  Christ  at  Santiago  (Ill.  676).  Only  thence  could  have  come  the 
long  parallel  folds,  the  wavy  bottom  edge,  the  “organ-pipe”  effect. 
The  folds  on  the  left  leg  of  the  St.-Gilles  St.  Matthew  (Ill.  1302)  are 
like  those  on  the  right  leg  of  the  Santiago  St.  James  (Ill.  676).  The 
peculiar  ornament  of  the  border  of  St.  Peter’s  garment  (Ill.  1308) 
must  have  been  inspired  by  some  border  ornament  like  those  of  the 
Souillac  Isaiah  (Ill.  344)  of  the  Moissac  Beatus  Rogerus  (Ill.  379),  or 
Virgin  of  the  Adoration  (Ill.  375).  The  face  of  the  St.  Peter  (Ill.  1308) 
at  St.-Gilles  is  distinctly  reminiscent  of  the  facial  types  of  the 


276  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

Betrayal  Master  of  Santiago  (Ill.  680)  and  Conques  (Ill.  392-401). 
The  draperies  of  the  upper  part  of  the  left  sleeve  of  the  St.-Gilles 
St.  Bartholomew  (Ill.  1303)  reproduce  those  of  the  lower  part  of 
the  left  sleeve  of  the  angel  facing  to  the  right  in  the  St.-Sernin 
ambulatory  (Ill.  300).  We  may  conclude  that  Brunus  knew  pilgrim¬ 
age  sculpture  before  he  executed  any  of  the  works  which  have  come 
down  to  us. 

Other  features  of  his  early  style  show  different  influences.  The 
wattled  socks  of  the  St.  Matthew  are  a  motive  we  have  already  found 
at  Cluny  (Ill.  7) ;  but  in  Brunus’  version  it  has  become  strangely 
clumsy  and  heavy.  In  his  later  work  the  motive  is  transferred  to  the 
sleeves  of  the  St.  Paul  at  St.-Gilles  (Ill.  131 1),  and  to  those  of  the  two 
figures  of  the  south  jamb  at  Romans  (Ill.  1335).  The  edge  of  the  over¬ 
mantle  of  the  St.  Bartholomew  (Ill.  1303)  falling  across  the  left  knee, 
is  like  the  edge  of  the  over-garment  of  the  St.  Paul  of  Maguelonne 
(Ill.  1288).  The  papery  edges  of  the  draperies  of  the  St.  Matthew 
(Ill.  1302)  and  the  St.  Bartholomew  (Ill.  1303)  seem  to  be  derived 
from  those  of  the  Angouleme  Master’s  St.  Thomas  (Ill.  1304).  So 
also  are  the  incised  drapery  folds  below  the  scroll  of  the  St.  Bartholo¬ 
mew  (Ill.  1303).  The  curious  convention  of  indicating  the  drapery 
folds  on  the  right  leg  of  the  St.  Matthew  (Ill.  1302)  consisting  of  a 
curved  groove  ending  in  a  little  round  hole  is  peculiar.  In  the  later 
work  of  Brunus  it  recurs  in  the  St.  James  (Ill.  1310)  and  the  St.  John 
(Ill.  1306,  1307).  We  have  seen  that  this  mannerism  was  copied  by 
the  St.-Martin  master  at  Vol terra  (Ill.  194-196).  A  similar  pecu¬ 
liarity  is  found  in  the  work  of  the  Charlieu  Master  at  Donzy  (Ill. 
112-114). 

The  type  of  drapery  which  Brunus  took  over,  as  we  have  seen, 
from  the  Christ  of  Santiago,  and  applied  somewhat  timidly  in  the 
skirts  of  his  St.  Matthew  (Ill.  1302)  grew  upon  him  in  his  later  works. 
As  his  style  advances,  this  type  of  drapery  is  gradually,  but  consist¬ 
ently,  developed.  At  Romans  (Ill.  1334,  1335)  it  entirely  predomi¬ 
nates.  The  change  in  the  draperies  is  accompanied  by  a  correspond¬ 
ing  development  in  the  character  of  the  sculptures.  The  fussy, 


ST.-GILLES 


277 


awkward  and  angular  manner  of  the  Sl  Matthew  (Ill.  1302)  has  be¬ 
come  at  Romans  (Ill.  1334,  1335)  suave,  dignified  and  classic.  The 
heavy  and  stocky  proportions  have  become  slim  and  graceful. 
Certainly,  if  we  did  not  have  the  intermediate  statues,  we  should 
hardly  suspect  that  the  St.  Matthew  (Ill.  1302)  of  St.-Gilles  and  the 
right  jamb  of  Romans  (Ill.  1335)  were  the  work  of  the  same  artist. 

This  change  in  the  style  of  Brunus  was  no  doubt  in  part  due  to  his 
own  growing  maturity,  but  even  more  I  suspect  to  the  influence  of 
other  artists  with  whom  he  came  in  contact.  It  is,  for  example,  cer¬ 
tain  that  he  took,  directly  or  indirectly,  ideas  from  the  Beaucaire 
tympanum.  This  lovely  work  was  indeed  copied  at  St.-Gilles.  In  the 
ruins  of  the  choir  may  be  still  seen  a  fragment  of  relief  (Ill.  1329) 
which  obviously  once  formed  part  of  an  Adoration  of  the  Magi, 
which  was  the  subject  of  the  Beaucaire  tympanum.  The  lower  part 
of  the  Virgin’s  legs  and  the  torso  of  a  kneeling  king  only  survive.  The 
king  kneels  to  the  left  of  the  Virgin,  and  is  of  smaller  stature,  pre¬ 
cisely  as  in  the  Virgin  of  Fontfroide  (Ill.  1301),  which,  we  have  seen, 
reproduces  the  composition  of  the  Beaucaire  tympanum.  Moreover, 
when  we  place  the  St.-Gilles  fragment  beside  the  Virgin  of  Beaucaire 
(Ill.  1299),  the  relationship  is  patent.  The  draperies  are  of  the  same 
“organ-pipe”  type.  The  spread-apart  knees  are  held  in  precisely  the 
same  position ;  the  bottom  fringe  of  the  draperies  is  the  same,  the 
sagging  folds  between  the  legs  identical.  At  St.-Gilles  the  propor¬ 
tions  are  less  slender,  and  the  over-skirt,  which  at  Beaucaire  sags 
between  the  legs,  is  carried  horizontally  across.^ 

Now  the  grave  and  noble  style  of  the  Beaucaire  tympanum  could 
not  have  left  unaffected  a  much  less  sensitive  artist  than  Brunus. 
And  in  fact  its  influence  becomes  unmistakable  in  the  jamb  figures 
of  St..-Gilles  (Ill.  1302,  1303,  1306-1311).  The  folds  of  the  over¬ 
skirt  of  the  St.  Peter  (Ill.  1309)  have  in  the  middle  “organ-pipe”  a 
groove  separated  from  two  rounded-over  folds  by  sharp  edges,  and 
ending  at  the  bottom  in  a  curve  something  like  the  figure  “3.”  Now 

^  Other  Adorations  belonging  to  this  cycle  may  be  found  in  the  Baptistry  of  Parma,  the 
cathedral  of  Verona,  the  Goldene  Pforte  of  Freiberg  i.  Sa.  and  St.  Paul  in  Lavanthal. 


278  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

there  are  folds  of  precisely  this  character  in  the  Beaucaire  Virgin  in 
the  draperies  following  down  the  centre  of  each  leg  (Ill.  1299).  The 
sharply  pointed  sagging  folds  several  times  repeated  at  the  bottom 
of  the  skirts  of  the  St.  Peter  (Ill.  1308,  1309)  are  like  those  between 
the  legs  of  the  Beaucaire  Virgin  (Ill.  1299).  But  it  was  not  only  tech¬ 
nical  tricks  that  Brunus  learned  from  this  masterpiece.  His  in¬ 
creasing  use  of  “organ-pipe”  draperies,  the  greater  emphasis  of  the 
vertical  line,  the  poise  and  dignity  of  his  later  figures  must  be  due  to 
this  inspiration. 

The  third  hand  which  may  be  recognized  in  the  portal  of  St.-Gilles 
is  to  be  found  in  the  St.  James  the  Less  to  the  north  of  the  central  por¬ 
tal  (Ill.  1305)  and  in  the  four  unnamed  apostles  of  the  southern  half 
of  the  fagade  (Ill.  1312-1315).  The  St.  James  the  Less  (Ill.  1305) 
seems  to  have  been  touched  up  by  the  Angouleme  Master,  the  two 
apostles  to  the  extreme  right  by  Brunus  (Ill.  13 14).  The  style  of  the 
Third  Master  was  clearly  much  controlled  by  Brunus,  more  perhaps, 
however,  in  the  broad  lines  of  the  composition  than  in  the  details, 
although  the  latter,  too,  have  been  imitated  —  for  example,  the  right 
sleeve  of  the  first  apostle  south  of  the  central  portal  (Ill.  1312)  ends 
in  the  same  series  of  little  circles  which  Brunus  had  taken  over  from 
Santiago  in  his  St.  Bartholomew  (Ill.  1303).  The  head  of  the  apostle 
to  the  south  of  the  central  portal  (Ill.  1313)  is  a  notable  achievement. 
It  foreshadows  to  a  singular  degree  the  style  of  the  XIII  century.^ 
It  appears  to  have  been  inspired  by  the  head  of  Brunus’  St.  Paul  (Ill. 
1311),  and  in  turn  to  have  been  the  inspiration  of  certain  of  the 
apostles  of  St.-Etienne  of  Toulouse  (Ill.  437)  and  of  the  jamb  sculp¬ 
tures  of  Senlis  (Ill.  1 509).  Perhaps  a  conscious  purpose  to  imitate  the 
manner  of  the  Midi  determined  our  master  to  cross,  so  badly  and 
ineffectually,  the  legs  of  one  of  his  apostles  (Ill.  1312).  Behind  all 
this  forced  mannerism,  however,  the  true  nature  of  the  artist  emerges 
here  and  there  unmistakably  into  sight.  He  is,  in  fact,  Burgundian. 
The  heavy  spiral  on  the  right  of  the  chest  of  the  apostle  to  the 

*  See  for  example  the  head  of  the  St.  Jude  of  the  south  portal  of  Chartres  illustrated  by 
Houvet,  37. 


ST.-GILLES 


279 


extreme  south  (Ill.  1314)  is  a  south  Burgundian  mannerism  —  we 
find  similar  draperies  in  the  work  of  Guillaume  Martin  at  Vienne 
(Ill.  1218).  But  our  artist,  while  he  may  have  seen  the  work  in  south 
Burgundy,  still  comes  from  farther  to  the  north.  The  bit  of  drapery 
which  falls  over  the  right  shoulder  of  the  second  apostle  south  of  the 
portal  at  St.-Gilles  (Ill.  13 12)  is  exactly  like  the  drapery  on  the  zig-zag 
edge  of  the  over-garment  about  the  legs  of  the  angel  to  the  right  of 
the  aureole  in  the  Autun  tympanum  (Ill.  81).  The  draperies  about 
the  right  shin  of  the  same  apostle  at  St.-Gilles  (Ill.  1312)  are  precisely 
like  those  about  the  shin  of  the  St.  Michael  of  the  Autun  tympanum 
(Ill.  81).  The  bunch  of  drapery  to  the  right  of  the  knee  of  the  first 
apostle  at  St.-Gilles  (Ill.  1312)  is  like  that  to  the  left  of  the  feet  of  the 
St.  Michael  (Ill.  81)  in  the  Autun  tympanum.  There  can  be  no  ques¬ 
tion  that  our  master  knew  Autun  well. 

The  closest  analogies  which  he  shows,  however,  are  with  the  tym¬ 
panum  of  the  Majestas  Domini  of  St.-Benigne  of  Dijon  (Ill.  134, 135). 
It  is  evident  that  his  system  of  draperies  is  precisely  the  system  of 
this  commonplace  and  uninteresting  artist  of  Burgundy.  In  both 
there  are  ornamented  borders.  In  both  there  are  the  same  character¬ 
less,  banal  folds.  The  draperies  of  the  left  leg  of  the  angel  to  the  right 
of  the  aureole  at  Dijon  (Ill.  135)  repeat  those  of  the  left  leg  of  the  first 
apostle  at  St.-Gilles  (Ill.  1312).  Both  works  are  characterized  by  the 
same  spineless  inanity,  the  same  stupidity. 

I  suspect  that  the  classic  character  of  the  architecture  of  the  fagade 
of  St.-Gilles  may  be  due  to  the  influence  of  Burgundian  motives  im¬ 
ported  by  the  Third  Master,  as  well  as  to  the  direct  copying  of  Ro¬ 
man  ruins.  The  fluted  pilasters,  so  striking  at  St.-Gilles,  had  long 
before  been  acclimated  in  Burgundy.  The  Greek  frets  of  St.-Gilles 
(Ill.  1321,  1325)  recall  the  equally  classic  ones  of  La  Charite  (Ill. 
1 18).  It  is  certain  that  the  composition  of  the  central  tympanum  of 
St.-Gilles  repeated  a  Burgundian  motive. 

The  hand  of  the  Third  Master  of  St.-Gilles  reappears  in  the  series 
of  reliefs  now  divided  between  St.-Guilhem-le-Desert  (Ill.  1399)  and 
the  University  of  Montpellier  (Ill.  1397, 1398). 


a8o  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

The  fourth  hand  which  may  be  distinguished  at  St.-Gilles  is  that 
of  the  master  who  was  at  least  in  part  responsible  for  the  frieze,  and 
whom  I  venture  to  designate  by  the  term  “St.-Gilles  Master.” 

The  frieze  (Ill.  13 15-1322)  is  surely  not  all  the  work  of  one  hand. 
We  have  already  remarked  that  the  scene  of  the  Betrayal  (Ill.  1319, 
1320)  seems  to  show,  at  least  in  part,  the  hand  of  the  Master  of 
the  Bari  Throne.’-  The  hand  of  the  Third  Master  seems  to  me  to 
be  traceable  in  certain  draperies  in  the  first  scene  of  the  Money- 
Changers  (Ill.  1316),  and  in  the  entire  figure,  second  from  the  right 
of  this  scene  (Ill.  1316),  also  in  the  head  of  Christ  in  the  scene  of  the 
Denial  (Ill.  1316).  There  are  doubtless  retouches  here  and  there  by 
various  ones  of  the  sculptors  who  worked  upon  other  portions  of  the 
church.  The  end  portions  of  the  frieze  over  the  two  side  portals,  as 
we  shall  see,  are  of  a  different  period.  With  this  exception,  however, 
the  frieze  as  a  whole  has  a  distinct  and  unified  character,  and  in  it  the 
personality  of  one  artist  is  clearly  felt. 

The  most  striking  fact  about  the  frieze  is  that  the  composition  is 
copied,  episode  for  episode,  from  the  frieze  of  Beaucaire  (Ill.  1292- 
1298).  If,  for  example,  we  compare  the  two  scenes  of  the  Denial  (Ill. 
1293  Ill.  1316),  we  shall  perceive  that  in  both  Christ  is  placed  to 
the  right ;  then  comes  Peter,  with  the  cock  in  front  of  him,  then 
other  disciples.  At  St.-Gilles  the  number  of  these  has  been  increased, 
and  the  composition  is  more  complicated.  The  scene  of  the  Washing 
of  the  Feet  is  also  analogous  in  the  two  works  (Ill.  1292,  1293, 
and  Ill.  1318).  St.  Peter  is  seated  to  the  right;  his  right  foot  is 
held  by  the  kneeling  Christ  over  a  tub  of  water ;  to  the  left  is  a  col¬ 
umn,  on  the  top  of  which  hangs  a  towel.  The  two  Last  Suppers  (Ill. 
1292,  1294,  1295  and  Ill.  1318)  follow  as  nearly  as  it  is  possible  to  tell 
in  the  present  mutilated  condition  of  the  St.-Gilles  version,  the  same 
composition.  In  both  there  is  an  apostle  seated  at  either  end  of  the 
table ;  in  both  the  right-hand  apostle  cuts  in  the  middle  a  loaf  of 
bread  held  in  his  left  hand.  Christ  is  in  the  centre,  St.  John  at  his 
right  leans  against  his  bosom;  Judas  is  the  second  apostle  to  the 

1  See  above,  p.  6i. 


ST.-GILLES 


281 


right,  and  the  Saviour  gives  him  the  sop.  The  table  furnishings  are 
the  same,  even  the  cloth  is  indicated  by  a  similar  convention.^  Then 
follows  in  both  series  the  scene  of  Judas  receiving  the  price  of  his 
treason  (Ill.  1295,  1318)  1319)  —  he  kneels  before  the  high  priest. “ 
The  group  of  spectators  is  the  same  with  a  shorter  figure  placed 
directly  in  front  of  a  taller  one  (at  Beaucaire  the  panel  with  the 
spectators  has  been  by  error  placed  in  the  resetting  to  the  right, 
instead  of  to  the  left  of  the  central  group).  The  composition  is  simi¬ 
lar  in  both  works,  but  as  usual  St.-Gilles  is  more  expanded,  more 
elaborate,  amplified.  The  next  scene  in  both  series  is  the  Betrayal 
(Ill.  1295  3.nd  Ill.  1319,  1320).  In  each  case  an  executioner  stands  to 
the  right ;  then  comes  the  group  of  Judas  embracing  Christ,  the  Sav¬ 
iour  to  the  left,  a  little  taller,  Judas’  left  hand  upon  His  right  shoul¬ 
der.  Behind  is  a  group  of  executioners  ;  the  Peter  and  Malchus  at  the 
extreme  left  of  the  St.-Gilles  composition  perhaps  once  existed  also 
at  Beaucaire,  but  if  so,  have  been  lost.  Again  we  note  that  St.-Gilles 
is  more  diffuse,  more  complicated.  The  two  scenes  of  Christ  before 
Pilate  (Ill.  1296  and  Ill.  1321)  are  as  similar.  In  each  case  Pilate  is 
seated  to  the  right ;  he  is  in  precisely  the  same  posture ;  even  the 
draperies  of  the  upper  part  of  his  tunic  fall  in  the  same  folds.  The 
minister  at  his  left  in  the  Beaucaire  version  is  omitted  at  St.-Gilles  — 
this  is  one  of  the  very  few  instances  in  which  a  figure  of  the  Beaucaire 
rendering  is  eliminated  at  St.-Gilles.  To  Pilate’s  right  stands  another 
minister  in  both  versions ;  even  the  peculiar  face  seen  in  profile  is 
alike  in  the  two  reliefs.  Then  follows  an  executioner  dragging  Christ 
by  the  hands ;  behind  at  St.-Gilles  is  another  executioner  who  is  lack¬ 
ing  at  Beaucaire.  In  the  two  scenes  of  the  Flagellation  (Ill.  1297 
Ill.  1322)  the  column  is  represented  in  both  versions  in  precisely  the 
same  way ;  Christ  in  the  same  attitude  is  to  the  left  of  it ;  His  hands 
crossed  and  tied  in  front  are  represented  in  exactly  the  same  way 
even  to  the  leather  thongs  which  tie  them.  At  Beaucaire  the  exe- 

^The  Last  Supper  of  St.-Gilles  was  imitated  at  Nantua  (Ill.  1214  a),  Vizille  (Ill.  1185) 

S.  Giovanni  Fuorcivitas  of  Pistoia  (Ill.  199). 

^  Comte  de  Lasteyrie,  108,  seems  to  have  entirely  overlooked  this  scene.  He  tried  with  evi- 
dent  error  to  interpret  the  panels  of  the  Money-Changers  as  a  representation  of  this  subject. 


282  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

cutioners  which  surely  once  existed  have  disappeared.  The  final 
scene  of  the  Carrying  of  the  Cross  was  quite  as  similar  at  Beau- 
caire  (Ill,  1297,  1298)  and  St.-Gilles  (Ill.  1321).  Christ  carries  the 
cross  of  the  same  form  and  size  held  in  the  same  diagonal  position ; 
He  is  followed  by  executioners,  destroyed  at  St.-Gilles,  but  who 
doubtless  once  carried,  as  they  still  do  at  Beaucaire,  nails  and 
hammers. 

There  is  therefore  no  doubt  of  the  close  relationship  of  the  two 
friezes.  It  is  equally  certain  that  the  St.-Gilles  version  is  later  than 
that  of  Beaucaire.  We  have  seen  that  throughout  it  is  an  expansion, 
an  elaboration  of  the  simpler  original.  We  have  only  to  compare  the 
draperies  of  the  two  Pilates  (Ill.  1296  and  Ill.  1322)  or  of  the  two 
Christs  at  the  Column  (Ill.  1297  and  Ill.  1322)  to  perceive  that  St.- 
Gilles  is  fussier,  more  elaborate,  more  naturalistic. 

Now  while  the  St.-Gilles  Master  has  taken  over  from  Beaucaire 
quite  slavishly  his  composition,  certain  draperies  like  those  of  his 
Pilate  (Ill.  1296  and  Ill.  1322)  and  even  facial  types  like  that  of  the 
executioner  at  Pilate’s  left  (Ill.  1296  and  Ill.  1322),  it  is  nevertheless 
evident  that  important  elements  of  his  style  can  not  be  accounted  for 
solely  on  the  basis  of  the  Beaucaire  frieze.  He  fell  under  other  in¬ 
fluences  as  well. 

Since  the  St.-Gilles  Master  had  certainly  been  at  Beaucaire,  we 
are  not  surprised  that  he  should  have  studied  the  tympanum  as  well 
as  the  frieze.  In  fact,  he  takes  over  in  the  skirts  of  the  executioner 
to  the  left  of  Christ  at  the  Column  (Ill.  1322)  the  peculiar  “organ- 
pipe”  draperies  which  we  have  seen  are  characteristic  of  the  Virgin 
of  Beaucaire  (Ill.  1299).  The  most  distinctive  feature  of  these  dra¬ 
peries,  it  will  be  recalled,  is  a  strand  following  down  the  front  of 
each  leg,  with  a  groove  separated  from  two  rounded-over  folds  by 
sharp  edges,  and  ending  at  the  bottom  in  a  curve  something  like 
a  figure  “3.”  Now  exactly  these  draperies  occur  in  the  skirts  of  the 
executioner  at  St.-Gilles,  and  also  the  sagging  folds  between  the 
legs  which  are  likewise  characteristic  of  the  Virgin  of  Beaucaire. 
It  is  clear,  therefore,  that  the  St.-Gilles  Master  acquired  these 


ST.-GILLES 


283 

draperies  directly  from  Beaucaire,  and  not  from  Brunus,  although 
we  have  seen  the  latter  also  borrowed  them  in  his  Sl  Peter 
(Ill.  1309). 

It  seems  also  certain  that  the  St.-Gilles  Master  fell  under  the  in¬ 
fluence  of  an  ivory-carving  —  probably  a  Byzantine  work  of  the  XI 
century,  or  some  occidental  imitation  of  such.  His  work  shows  close 
analogies  with  a  Byzantine  ivory  casket  of  the  XI  century  in  the 
Museo  Kirchiano  at  Rome.^  In  both  there  are  the  same  stocky  fig¬ 
ures  in  violent  motion  with  over-large  heads  and  short  skirts.  The 
clumsy  animals  are  almost  as  uncouth  as  those  which  the  St.-Gilles 
Master  perpetrated  in  the  scene  of  the  Money-Changers  (Ill.  1317). 
Two  ivory  panels  in  the  Metropolitan  Museum  of  New  York  ^  also 
resemble  the  St.-Gilles  frieze.  These  represent  the  labour  of  Adam 
and  Eve ;  they  are  Byzantine  since  they  have  Greek  inscriptions,  and 
are  assigned  to  the  XI  century.  Again  we  have  short  heavy-headed 
figures',  full  of  energetic  motion,  and  with  facial  types  and  draperies 
strikingly  like  those  of  the  frieze.  The  sleeves  have  the  same  wat¬ 
tling,  the  leggings  the  horizontal  striping  which  occurs  in  some  of  the 
St.-Gilles  figures.  The  garments  have  a  border  of  little  dots,  like  the 
lower  border  of  the  garment  of  the  executioner  dragging  Christ  before 
Pilate  at  St.-Gilles  (Ill.  1321).  The  frieze  even  shows  analogies  with 
ivory-carvings  of  an  earlier  time.  The  proportions  of  the  figures  and 
the  facial  types  should  be  compared  with  a  Byzantine  ivory  of  the 
VI  century  in  the  British  Museum.^  The  spiral  leggings,  which  are  a 
marked  peculiarity  of  the  style  of  the  St.-Gilles  Master  (they  are 
found,  for  example,  in  the  executioner  to  the  left  of  Christ  in  the 
Carrying  of  the  Cross,  Ill.  1321)  occur  in  the  Grado  throne,  an 
Alexandrine  work  of  the  VI  century,  which  was  much  copied  at  the 
end  of  the  XI  and  in  the  early  XII  century.^  It  was  undoubtedly 
from  some  ivory,  if  not  this  one,  that  the  St.-Gilles  Master  came  by 

^  Illustrated  by  Graeven,  II,  57-61.  The  casket  was  presented  to  a  Byzantine  emperor  and 
has  a  Greek  inscription ;  it  may,  however,  have  been  made  in  the  provinces. 

*  Accession  numbers  17.  190.  138  and  17.  190.  139. 

®  Illustrated  by  Graeven,  I,  24,  25. 

^  Illustrated  by  Venturi,  II,  626  and  by  Maclagen,  Plate  II,  II. 


284  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

the  motive,  which  is  not  common.^  A  German  pyxis  of  the  IX  cen¬ 
tury  in  the  British  Museum  ^  also  presents  points  of  contact  with  the 
frieze. 

To  the  other  influences  which  the  St.-Gilles  Master  underwent 
must  certainly  be  added  that  of  antique  sarcophagi.  So  much  has 
already  been  said  upon  this  subject  that  it  is  useless  to  insist  upon  it 
further.  The  sarcophagus  which  resembles  his  work  more  closely 
than  any  other  which  I  know  is  that  of  Tarragona.^  It  should  be  re¬ 
marked,  however,  that  many  of  the  details  which  the  St.-Gilles  Mas¬ 
ter  appears  to  have  taken  from  classical  sculpture  might  easily  have 
come  to  him  through  the  medium  of  Byzantine  ivories. 

It  is  a  striking  fact  that  the  composition  inaugurated  in  the 
frieze  of  Beaucaire  was  echoed  not  only  at  St.-Gilles.  At  Modena  the 
same  cycle  of  scenes  is  repeated  in  the  reliefs  of  the  pulpit,  episode 
for  episode.  The  Modena  version  is  the  finest,  the  most  elaborated 
and  the  latest  of  the  three.  It  must  be,  as  M.  Male  has  recognized,  a 
derivative,  not  a  prototype  of  Beaucaire,  and  executed  under  strong 
Provencal  influence.  Like  the  apostles  of  the  Milan  pulpit  of  1186, 
these  reliefs  bear  witness  to  the  wave  of  Provencal  artistic  ideas  that 
swept  over  northern  Italy  in  the  last  quarter  of  the  XII  century. 

In  France  the  Beaucaire  frieze  was  as  industriously  copied.  A  very 
literal  version  seems  to  have  existed  at  Savigny.^  The  procession  of 
the  executioners  reappears  in  a  capital  of  LTle-Bouchard  (Ill.  1105). 
The  capitals  of  Issoire  (Ill.  1214)  owe  something  to  this  source.  The 
Last  Supper  of  Nantua  (Ill.  1214  a)  is  derived  from  that  of  St.-Gilles 
(Ill.  1318).  The  arches  representing  the  temple  in  the  two  panels  of 
St.-Gilles  showing  the  Money-Changers  (Ill.  1316)  are  repeated  in 
the  wooden  doors  of  St.  Marien  im  Kapitol  of  Cologne.® 

Mr.  Alan  Priest®  has  made  the  very  interesting  suggestion  that  the 

*  It  occurs  on  the  cover  of  the  Oviedo  Area  Santa  of  1075  (Ill.  660)  and  in  a  miniature  of  the 
Missal  of  Robert  of  Canterbury  at  Rouen,  illustrated  by  Westwood,  PI.  40. 

^  Illustrated  by  Dalton,  PI.  XXIII,  43. 

*  Illustrated  by  Puig,  I,  83. 

^  Illustrated  by  Thiollier,  PI.  XXVII. 

®  Illustrated  by  Dehio  und  von  Bezold,  XII,  13. 

®  See  his  forthcoming  article  in  the  first  number  of  Art  Studies. 


ST.-GILLES 


285 

St.-Gilles  Master  may  have  worked  upon  the  cathedral  of  Chartres. 
In  fact,  he  is  unquestionably  right  in  holding  that  in  addition  to 
the  four  principal  hands  recognized  by  Prof.  Voge  in  the  west 
fagade,  and  since  his  time  universally  accepted  —  the  hands  of  the 
head  master,  the  Etampes  Master,  the  St. -Denis  Master  and  the 
Master  of  the  Angels,  there  must  also  be  recognized  a  fifth  hand.  To 
this  sculptor  are  to  be  attributed  the  two  lintels  of  the  southern  por¬ 
tal  ^  except  the  left-hand  figure  in  the  upper  zone  which  is  by  a  St.- 
Denis-esque  master.  In  the  Grammar  this  fifth  artist  is  evidently 
co-operating  with  a  St.-Denis-esque  master;  his  touch  is  especially 
unmistakable  in  the  heads  of  the  two  children.  In  the  lintel  he  was, 
as  we  have  already  seen,^  copying  detail  by  detail  the  frieze  of  Mon t- 
morillon  and  the  lintel  of  La  Charite.  He  was,  moreover,  working 
under  the  supervision  of  the  head  master,  who  even  seems  to  have 
touched  up  with  his  own  hand  the  draperies  in  various  places. 

Now  when  we  divest  the  fifth  master  at  Chartres  from  the  super¬ 
ficial  characteristics  obviously  borrowed  from  Montmorillon,  from 
La  Charite,  from  the  head  master,  from  the  St.-Denis  and  Madonna 
Masters,  we  have  left,  as  Mr.  Priest  saw,  the  personality  of  the  St.- 
Gilles  Master.  In  fact,  if  the  reader  will  put  M.  Houvet’s  excellent 
reproductions  of  Chartres  beside  our  reproductions  of  the  frieze  of 
St.-Gilles  (Ill.  1315-1322),  he  will  observe: 

(i)  The  sheep  at  Chartres  show  the  same  wooden  and  lifeless 
drawing  as  the  animals  in  the  scene  of  the  Money-Changers  at  St.- 
Gilles.  The  horn  of  the  ram  to  the  left  of  the  group  of  animals  at 
Chartres  curls  completely  around  the  ear  and  ends  in  a  point  below 
the  lower  lobe.  Now  the  horn  of  the  ram,  the  second  animal  from  the 
right  in  the  group  of  animals  at  St.-Gilles,  curls  around  in  precisely 
this  same  way.  The  eyes  of  the  two  rams  are  executed  in  exactly  the 
same  fashion  in  the  two  works.  So  are  the  nostrils  and  the  mouth.  It 
is  true  that  the  sheep  of  Chartres  are  very  conventionalized,  much 
less  naturalistic  than  those  of  St.-Gilles.  This  may  be  due  partly  to  a 

1  Houvet,  51,  52,  S3,  54,  55,  56,  57,  58. 

^  See  above,  p.  1 25  f. 


286  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

conscious  purpose  on  the  part  of  the  sculptor  to  adapt  them  to  the 
more  dignified  and  monumental  style  of  the  head  master  of  Char¬ 
tres,  partly  to  the  study  he  must  have  made  of  the  sheep  of  Mont- 
morillon  (they  have  been  destroyed,  but  we  can  judge  of  their  style 
from  the  fragment  that  remains.  Ill.  1072  a,  and  from  the  sheep 
of  Parthenay,  Ill.  1054,  to  which  they  must  have  been  very  similar). 
If  the  animals  in  the  scene  of  the  Money-Changers  at  St.-Gilles, 
those  by  the  Master  of  the  Bari  Throne  below  the  frieze  at  St.-Gilles, 
and  the  sheep  at  Chartres  be  all  placed  together,  we  shall  at  once 
feel  that  the  animals  of  Chartres  and  of  the  Money-Changers  belong 
in  one  group,  those  below  the  frieze  in  another. 

(2)  It  is  characteristic  of  both  the  Chartres  lintels  and  the  St.- 
Gilles  frieze  that  the  heads  are  too  big  for  the  bodies.  At  Chartres, 
the  St.-Denis  Master  occasionally  runs  into  this  fault,  but  in  general 
it  is  found  only  in  the  sculptures  which  we  attribute  to  the  St.-Gilles 
Master.  This  mistake  is  typical  of  the  drawing  of  the  St.-Gilles 
frieze  —  see,  for  example,  the  Washing  of  the  Feet. 

(3)  The  heads  are  badly  put  on  the  bodies  in  the  two  works.  Com¬ 
pare,  for  example,  the  Simeon  of  Chartres  with  the  Christ  of  the 
Washing  of  the  Feet  at  St.-Gilles. 

(4)  The  same  facial  types  are  found  in  the  two  works.  The  head  of 
the  Gabriel  in  the  Chartres  Annunciation  is  the  face  of  the  apostle 
next  to  the  right-hand  end  of  the  table  in  the  St.-Gilles  Last  Supper. 
The  face  of  the  seated  figure  in  the  Money-Changers  of  St.-Gilles  is 
very  like  the  face  of  the  Simeon  in  the  Chartres  Presentation.  The 
face  of  Joseph  in  the  scene  of  the  Presentation  at  Chartres  is  the  face 
of  Christ  in  the  Betrayal  of  St.-Gilles.  The  face  of  the  child  with 
curly  hair  in  the  Grammar  of  Chartres  is  like  the  face  of  the  fourth 
figure  from  the  left  in  the  Betrayal  of  St.-Gilles,  and  also,  most  un¬ 
expectedly,  like  the  face  of  an  executioner  in  the  capital  of  Christ 
Taken  at  Brive  (Ill.  355).  The  face  of  the  third  figure  from  the  left 
in  the  Chartres  Presentation  is  like  that  of  the  figure  on  the  right- 
hand  angle  of  the  St.-Gilles  Betrayal.  Undoubtedly  the  Chartres 
faces  show  greater  repose,  less  characterization,  less  naturalism  than 


ST.-GILLES 


287 

those  of  St.-Gilles.  The  change  must  be  ascribed  to  the  influence  of 
the  head  master.  Still  the  St.-Gilles  master’s  innate  love  of  natural¬ 
ism  every  now  and  then  shows  through.  The  shepherds  of  Chartres 
are  as  realistic,  as  finely  characterized  as  any  of  the  figures  at  St.- 
Gilles.  I  should  hardly  know  where  to  find  a  more  dramatic  repre¬ 
sentation  of  what  Shakespeare  would  have  called  a  natural. 

(5)  In  both  series  of  reliefs  the  drawing  of  the  eye  is  precisely  the 
same.  The  opening  of  the  lids  is  of  almond  shape,  sharply  pointed  at 
both  ends ;  a  double  line  indicates  the  upper  lid,  the  pupil  is  repre¬ 
sented  by  a  round  bored  hole.  It  is  the  boring-out  of  the  pupil  which 
is  especially  characteristic.  At  Chartres  this  convention  is  rarely 
found  except  in  the  works  of  the  St.-Gilles  Master. 

(6)  A  peculiar  hair  convention  at  St.-Gilles  consists  in  drawing 
an  incised  spiral  upon  a  rounded  bump.  This,  for  example,  is  found 
in  the  Peter  of  the  Betrayal  at  St.-Gilles  and  in  the  executioner  which 
is  the  next  figure  but  one  to  him  to  the  right.  Now  this  convention 
is  repeated  at  Chartres.  We  find  it  in  the  third  figure  from  the  left 
in  the  Presentation ;  and  in  the  child  to  the  right  in  the  Grammar. 

(7)  This  sculptor  was  clearly  fond  of  copying  other  people’s  com¬ 
positions.  At  St.-Gilles  he  reproduces  the  frieze  of  Beaucaire,  at 
Chartres  that  of  Montmorillon. 

(8)  The  peculiar  drapery  folds  of  the  skirts  of  the  executioner  to 
the  left  of  Christ  at  the  column  at  St.-Gilles  which  we  have  already 
seen  the  St.-Gilles  Master  took  over  from  the  tympanum  at  Beau- 
caire,^  reappear  at  Chartres,  in  the  skirts  of  the  two  shepherds,  espe¬ 
cially  the  one  playing  a  flute  to  the  right. 

(9)  The  wattling  of  the  draperies  of  the  sleeve,  both  on  the  fore¬ 
arm  and  on  the  upper  arm  is  a  constant  mannerism  in  both  series  of 
reliefs. 

(10)  The  convention  of  representing  the  end  of  the  sleeve  by  a 
series  of  circles  like  metal  rings,  which  Brunus  had  fetched  from  San¬ 
tiago  2  was  taken  over  by  the  St.-Gilles  Master  in  his  frieze  at  St.- 
Gilles.  We  find  it,  for  example,  in  the  figure  to  the  right  of  the  pair 

^See  above,  p.  282.  ^  See  above,  p.  275. 


288  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

at  the  extreme  left  of  the  first  relief  of  the  Money-Changers,  and  on 
the  right  sleeve  of  the  executioner  behind  Christ  in  the  Christ  before 
Pilate,  and  in  other  places  as  well.  Now  this  same  convention  is 
typical  of  the  work  of  the  St.-Gilles  Master  at  Chartres,  being  found 
for  example,  in  the  right  sleeve  of  the  third  figure  from  the  left  in  the 
Presentation,  and  in  the  right-hand  shepherd. 

(11)  Perforated  borders  are  characteristic  of  the  style  of  both 
series  of  reliefs.  Compare,  for  example,  that  of  the  skirts  of  the  ex¬ 
ecutioner  to  the  right  of  Christ  at  the  Column  of  St.-Gilles  with  that 
of  the  over-garment  of  the  third  figure  from  the  left  in  the  Presenta¬ 
tion  of  Chartres. 

(12)  The  most  striking  similarity  of  all  is  the  spiral  leggings. 
This  mannerism  we  have  seen  came  to  the  St.-Gilles  frieze  from 
ivories,  and  is  introduced  several  times  —  in  the  executioner  behind 
Christ  in  the  Carrying  of  the  Cross,  in  the  executioner  behind  Christ 
in  the  Christ  before  Pilate  and  in  the  merchant  to  the  right  of 
Christ  in  the  second  relief  of  the  Money-Changers.  Now  this  ex¬ 
tremely  rare^  motive  reappears  at  Chartres  in  the  Joseph  of  the 
Nativity. 

(13)  The  short  skirts  of  the  shepherds  at  Chartres  vividly  recall 
the  costumes  of  the  frieze  at  St.-Gilles. 

The  conclusions  to  be  drawn  from  these  analogies  will  doubtless 
give  rise  to  difference  of  opinion.  I  do  not  conceal  my  own  suspicion 
that  the  St.-Gilles  Master  of  Chartres  had  actually  worked  upon  the 
frieze  of  St.-Gilles,  widely  divergent  as  the  two  styles  appear  to 
be.  We  have  already  found  ample  proofs  that  Romanesque  sculp¬ 
tors  travelled  far,  and  underwent  extraordinary  changes  of  manner. 

Whether  the  same  sculptor  wandered  from  St.-Gilles  to  Chartres 
is,  however,  an  ac'ademic  question  which  students  of  the  future  may 
be  left  to  argue.  What  becomes  certain  in  the  light  of  Mr.  Priest’s 
observations  is  that  the  master  of  the  southern  lintel  at  Chartres  is 
very  closely  related  to  the  master  of  the  frieze  of  St.-Gilles.  It  is  also 


1 1  know  it  elsewhere  in  Romanesque  sculpture  only  at  St.-Ursin  of  Bourges  (Ill.  1263)  and  in 
capital  of  Santo  Domingo  de  Silos  (Byne  phot.). 


ST.-GILLES 


289 

clear,  that  of  the  two,  St.-Gilles  is  the  older.  The  central  frieze  of  St.- 
Gilles  shows  no  trace  of  the  influence  of  the  head  master  of  Chartres. 
Were  the  influence  from  Chartres  to  St.-Gilles,  it  is  inconceivable 
that  only  technical  mannerisms  of  the  Fifth  Master,  but  none  of  the 
great  innovations  of  the  chief  sculptor,  should  have  been  taken  over. 

The  striking  resemblances  between  the  adossed  statues  of  St.- 
Gilles  and  Arles,  on  the  one  hand,  and  St. -Denis  and  Chartres  on  the 
other,  have  been  much  discussed.  We  may  now,  I  think,  safely  say 
that  Chartres  certainly  did  not  influence  the  earlier  work  at  St.- 
Gilles.  It  is  more  likely  that  knowledge  of  Provencal  motives  was 
brought  to  Chartres  by  the  master  of  the  southern  lintel.  We  have 
seen  that  the  Virgin  of  the  southern  tympanum  at  Chartres  is 
derived  from  Marseille  and  Beaucaire.  That  there  was  influence  of 
St.-Gilles  upon  Chartres  is  entirely  probable.  It  may  also  be  that 
St.-Denis  influenced  directly  or  indirectly  St.-Gilles.  The  jamb 
sculptures  of  Chartres  seem  to  proceed  directly  from  St.-Denis,  and 
those  of  St.-Gilles  directly  from  Lombardy  and  Santiago  ;  but  that 
the  two  were  connected  by  innumerable  cross-currents  will  not  be 
doubted  by  any  one  familiar  with  the  multiplicity  of  artistic  waves 
radiating  in  all  directions  from  every  mediaeval  atelier  of  im¬ 
portance. 

Before  leaving  the  St.-Gilles  Master,  a  word  should  be  said  of  his 
relationship  with  Lombardy  and  Apulia.  The  spiral  curls,  which  we 
have  mentioned  as  peculiar  to  his  style,  were  in  all  probability 
brought  to  him  by  the  Master  of  the  Bari  Throne,  of  whose  work  we 
have  seen,  they  are  characteristic.^  He  might,  however,  have  come 
by  them  as  well  from  Byzantine  ivories,  for  the  motive  is  of  ancient 
Eastern  origin.  The  “snail  curls”  of  Oriental  Buddhas  are  perhaps 
not  unconnected.  Both  are  possibly  descendants  of  archaic  Greek 
works,  like  the  Harmodios.  However  this  may  be,  spiral  curls  already 
appear  in  the  same  form  in  which  the  St.-Gilles  Master  uses  them  in 
a  Coptic  relief  of  St.-Menas  from  Thekla.^  They  also  found  their 
way  into  the  Grado  throne,  which  is  believed  to  be  an  Alexandrine 

^  See  above,  p.  61.  2  Illustrated  by  Kaufmann,  65. 


290  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

work  of  the  VI  cetitury.^  We  have  seen  that  the  Grado  throne  shows 
more  than  one  point  of  contract  with  the  St.-Gilles  frieze. 

These  same  curls  are  found  in  North  Italian  sculpture.  They  oc¬ 
cur,  for  example,  in  the  left-hand  saint  above  in  a  relief  of  S.  Marco 
of  Venice. 2  They  are  also  found  in  a  relief  representing  Hercules  and 
the  Nemaean  Lion  at  Borgo  S.  Donnino.®  The  style  of  this  relief 
comes  indeed  very  close  to  that  of  the  St.-Gilles  Master.  The  head 
is  obviously  related  to  that  of  the  third  figure  from  the  left  in  the 
Chartres  Presentation.  Benedetto,  who  worked  later  at  Borgo, 
shows  the  strong  influence  of  St.-Gilles.  This  relief,  however,  seems 
to  belong  to  an  earlier  atelier.  It  seems  very  Byzantine  in  character. 
It  is  not  probable  that  the  Borgo  Hercules  was  influenced  either  by 
St.-Gilles  or  Chartres.  There  is  far  more  likelihood  that  either  it,  or 
other  works  of  the  school  to  which  it  belonged,  exerted  an  influence 
upon  the  St.-Gilles  Master.^ 

The  fifth  hand  which  may  be  distinguished  at  St.-Gilles  is  that  of 
the  Master  of  the  Bari  Throne.  We  have  already  discussed  his  work 
at  St.-Gilles.^  I  have  nothing  to  add  at  this  point  beyond  what  has 
already  been  said,  except  that  his  exquisite  heads  in  profile  in  relief 
(Ill.  1316)  seem  to  have  relationship  to  one  of  similar  character  on 
the  area  of  St.-Hilaire  (Ill.  1289). 

In  addition  to  the  five  distinct  hands  which  we  have  distinguished 
at  St.-Gilles,  a  separate  group  should  be  made  of  the  two  tympana 
of  the  side  portals  (Ill.  1385,  1386),  the  frieze  of  these  portals  (Ill. 
1387-1391)  and  the  two  angels  at  either  end  of  the  fagade  (Ill.  139^“ 
1396).  These  are  all  certainly  additions  made  to  the  original  fagade 
a  considerable  time  after  the  rest  of  the  work  had  been  completed 


1  Illustrated  by  Maclagen.  ^  Illustrated  by  Ongania,  PI.  279. 

^  Illustrated  by  Venturi  III,  331. 

^  Similar  spiral  curls  are  found  in  the  Daniel  of  the  Portico  de  la  Gloria  (Ill.  829  b). 

5  See  above,  p.  59  f. 

«The  original  scheme  for  the  fagade  of  St.-Gilles  seems  to  have  contemplated  a  single 
portal  like  that  of  Arles  (Ill.  1366).  This  was  subsequently  enlarged  by  the  addition  of  two 
side  portals.  The  iconography  of  the  frieze  was  pieced  out  by  adding  to  the  north  the  much 
expanded  scene  of  the  Entry  into  Jerusalem ;  to  the  south  the  story  of  the  three  Maries. 
The  scene  of  the  Feast  in  the  House  of  Simon,  out  of  its  logical  position,  proves  the  change  in 
the  iconographic  program. 


ST.-GILLES 


291 


yet  the  style  is  so  similar  to  that  of  the  earlier  work  that  the  break 
might  easily  escape  casual  inspection.  The  apparent  coherence  is 
probably  in  part  due  to  conscious  imitation  of  the  earlier  work ;  but 
also,  I  fancy,  to  the  fact  that  at  least  one  of  the  old  masters  was  re¬ 
called  to  add  the  side  portals.  The  southern  angel,  in  fact,  seems  to 
be  by  the  same  hand  as  the  apostle  south  of  the  central  portal  — -  we 
can  easily  convince  ourselves  by  comparing  the  two  heads  (Ill.  1395 
and  Ill.  1313).  The  draperies  of  the  northern  angel  (Ill.  1392)  are  not 
unlike  those  of  the  second  statue  south  of  the  central  portal  (Ill. 
1312).  The  draperies  of  the  Virgin  in  the  tympanum  of  the  Adora¬ 
tion  (Ill.  1386)  are  very  close  to  those  of  the  first  statue  south  of  the 
central  portal  (Ill.  1312).  If  we  suppose  that  the  Third  Master  was 
called  back  to  make  the  additions  to  the  original  fagade,  we  can  ex¬ 
plain  facts  which  would  otherwise  be  puzzling :  why  the  draperies  of 
the  earlier  frieze  are  reproduced  in  the  later  work  with  entire  success 
(for  as  we  have  seen  the  Third  Master  co-operated  with  the  St.- 
Gilles  Master  in  the  production  of  the  original  frieze,  and  hence 
would,  of  course,  be  thoroughly  in  touch  with  all  the  details  of  the 
technique)  whereas  the  draperies  of  Brunus  are  imitated  with  dili¬ 
gence,  but  never  really  caught  (compare  the  angel.  Ill.  1396,  with 
Brunus’  St.  Bartholomew,  Ill.  1303) ;  how  the  sculptor  of  the  later 
work  knew  the  model,  the  frieze  of  Beaucaire,  from  which  the  St.- 
Gilles  Master  had  taken  the  composition  of  his  frieze,  and  was  able 
to  continue  to  copy  the  same  original  in  the  new  scenes  which  he 
added  in  the  southern  lintel  (compare  Ill.  1298  with  Ill.  1391). 

It  is  clear  that  the  Third  Master  had  come  in  contact  with  new  in¬ 
fluences  after  he  worked  upon  the  earlier  portions  of  his  frieze,  and 
before  he  undertook  the  later.  The  imitation  of  La  Charite  is  not 
evident  in  his  earlier  sculptures,  but  is  prominent  in  his  later  work. 
It  is  not  surprising  that  a  Burgundian  should  have  re-visited  his 
native  land  in  the  thirty  years  which  appear  to  have  separated  the 
two  periods  of  building  at  St.-Gilles.  The  peculiar  ornament  consist¬ 
ing  of  three  perforated  dots  ^  which  we  find  on  the  socks  of  the  first 

^  The  motive  of  three  dots  is  as  old  as  archaic  Greece  and  diffused  from  Persia  to  Ireland. 


292  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

Ma  gus  at  La  Charite  (Ill.  ii8)  reappears  on  the  garment  of  the 
Church  in  the  St.-Gilles  tympanum  of  the  Crucifixion  (Ill.  1385). 
The  facial  types  of  the  angels  of  St.-Gilles  (Ill.  1393,  1395)  are 
strongly  reminiscent  of  those  of  the  angels  of  La  Charite  (Ill.  117). 

It  is  also  clear  that  the  Third  Master  was  influenced  by  Chartres 
after  he  had  completed  the  first  part  of  his  frieze,  for  many  Chartres- 
esque  mannerisms  are  found  in  the  later  part,  while  such  are  notably 
absent  in  all  the  earlier  work  afSt.-Gilles.  Thus  the  angel  of  the  St.- 
Gilles  Adoration  (Ill.  1386)  reproduces  one  of  the  angels  of  the  north¬ 
ern  tympanum  of  Chartres.  The  rhythm  of  the  Entry  into  Jerusalem 
(Ill.  1388)  is  distinctly  Chartres-esque,  and  is  very  different  from  the 
jerky  rhythm  of  the  earlier  portions  of  the  frieze  (Ill.  13 15-1322). 
The  fine  parallel  folds  of  the  later  draperies,  contrasting  with  the  less 
rhythmical  folds  of  the  earlier  work,  show  unquestionably  the  in¬ 
fluence  of  Chartres.  The  folds  of  the  sleeve  of  the  third  figure  from 
the  left  of  the  Entry  into  Jerusalem  (Ill.  1388)  reproduce  exactly  a 
familiar  mannerism  of  the  head  master  of  Chartres.^ 

Finally,  the  draperies  of  the  later  work  at  St.-Gilles  clearly  show, 
as  has  already  been  remarked,  the  influence  of  the  tomb  of  St.- 
Junien  (Ill.  450-452). ^ 

It  may  well  be  that  two  or  even  more  artists  were  employed  upon 
the  enlargement  of  the  original  facade ;  but  although  the  style  does 
not  seem  entirely  coherent,  I  am  unable  to  differentiate  with  any 
clarity  the  hands.  I  shall  only  remark  that  the  tympanum  of  the 
Crucifixion  (Ill.  1385)  seems  very  inferior  in  quality  to  that  of  the 
Adoration  (Ill.  1386).  We  can  discuss  the  date  of  the  later  work  at 
St.-Gilles  more  intelligently  after  we  have  studied  the  question  of 
the  date  of  the  earlier  atelier. 

The  church  of  St.-Gilles  was  begun  in  1116,  as  is  recorded  in  an 
inscription  on  a  buttress  of  the  south  exterior  wall  of  the  nave.^  The 

*  All  these  similarities  with  La  Charite  and  Chartres  were  first  brought  to  my  attention  by 
Mr.  Priest. 

^  See  above,  p.  156. 

3  [ANN]0  DNI  MCXVI  HOC  TEPLV 

[SANCJI  AEJGIDII  AEDIFICARI  CEPIT 

...  PL  FRII.  IN  OCTAB.  PASCHE 


ST.-GILLES 


293 


construction  doubtless  began  with  the  rib-vaulted  choir.  It  may  well 
have  been  some  years  before  the  west  facade  was  attacked.  The 
foundation  wall  of  this  was,  however,  laid  before  1 142,  since  an  epi¬ 
taph  of  this  date  is  inscribed  upon  it.^  Indeed,  I  think  more  may  be 
inferred  from  this  inscription.  It  seems  unlikely  that  any  one  should 
be  buried  in  this  spot  while  the  fagade  was  still  in  process  of  con¬ 
struction.  It  is  not  too  much  to  conclude  that  the  fagade  was  finished 
before  1142. 

Let  us  now  compare  this  documentary  evidence  with  what  we  may 
deduce  from  the  style  of  the  sculptures. 

It  was  certainly  an  egregious  error  to  ascribe  the  frieze  to  the  end 
of  the  XII  century.  From  what  has  been  said  above  it  is  evident  that 
the  frieze  of  the  central  portion  of  the  fagade  is  contemporary  with 
the  great  statues  below. 

The  superior  limit  for  the  date  of  the  St.-Gilles  frieze  is  determined 
by  several  sculptures  which  must  be  later.  One  of  the  most  interest¬ 
ing  of  these  is  the  pulpit  at  Cagliari  in  Sardinia  (Ill.  186-188).  This 
remarkable  monument,  which  passed  as  a  work  of  Fra  Guglielmo,  the 
assistant  of  Niccola  Pisano  and  as  executed  in  1260,  now  appears  to 
be  instead  a  signed  work  of  that  Guglielmo  Tedesco  or  da  Innspruch 
who  in  1174  began  with  Bonnano  the  construction  of  the  cathedral 
of  Pisa.^  Not  only  that,  but  the  pulpit  is  dated  1158-1162.  It  was 
made  for  the  cathedral  of  Pisa,  but  was  removed  when  Giovanni 
Pisano  constructed  his  pulpit  in  1302-1310.  It  was  then  carried  by 
ship  to  Cagliari.  It  has  unfortunately  been  split  up  into  two  ambos, 
and  otherwise  mutilated,  but  the  sculptures  still  remain.  Now  these 
are  evidently  under  the  influence  of  the  school  of  Provence.^  Gugl¬ 
ielmo  Tedesco  had  certainly  seen  the  St.-Gilles  frieze,  for  he  repro- 

1 1  HIC  SEPVLTVS 

ESTCAVSITVS 

ANN  DNI  M;  C:XLII 

ORATE  PRO  EO 

^  See  the  important  study  by  Scanno,  277  f.  Prof.  Vdge  first  called  my  attention  to  the  im¬ 
portance  of  the  Cagliari  pulpit. 

^  Labande,  82,  cites  a  document  which  shows  that  in  1156  monks  of  Avignon  went  to  Pisa 
and  Carrara  for  marble  with  which  to  build  the  cloister  of  St.-Ruf.  There  were  evidently 
many  ways  in  which  artistic  ideas  might  be  exchanged  between  Tuscany  and  Provence. 


294  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

duces  the  arcades  which  stand  for  the  temple  in  the  St.-Gilles  scenes 
of  the  Money-Changers  (Ill.  1317)  in  his  relief  representing  the  Pres¬ 
entation  (Ill.  187).  But  he  had  seen  not  only  St.-Gilles.  His  “organ- 
pipe”  draperies  are  of  a  type  more  advanced  than  any  achieved  by 
Brunus ;  he  must  have  known  a  work  as  late  as  the  cloister  of  St.- 
Trophime  at  Arles,  probably  that  cloister  itself.  Therefore  the  early 
portions  of  the  cloister  at  Arles  are  anterior  to  1158,  and  the  fagade 
of  St.-Gilles  is  considerably  anterior. 

Guglielmo  da  Innspruch  was  not  the  only  sculptor  who  went  to 
Provence  in  search  of  ideas.  Guillaume  Martin  of  Vienne  also  made 
the  journey.  In  the  church  of  St.-Andre~le-Bas  he  sculptured  a 
capital  representing  Samson  and  the  Lion  (Ill.  1219).  Now  in  the 
face  of  the  Samson  he  reproduces,  stroke  for  stroke,  the  face  of  the 
youth  to  the  extreme  right  in  the  first  St.-Gilles  relief  of  the  Money- 
Changers  (Ill.  1316).  Happily,  the  sculptor  not  only  signed  his  name 
to  his  work  at  St.-Andre-le-Bas,  but  added  the  date  1152.  Therefore 
the  St.-Gilles  frieze  is  anterior  to  1152. 

We  may  even  draw  a  more  radical  inference  from  the  work  of 
Guillaume  Martin  at  St.-Andre-le-Bas  of  Vienne.  On  another 
capital  he  has  sculptured  the  story  of  Job.  Now  the  face  of  Job 
(Ill.  1218)  reproduces,  line  for  line  and  wrinkle  for  wrinkle,  the  face 
of  the  patriarch  to  the  right  in  the  frieze  of  the  Arles  facade  (Ill. 
1370).  Therefore  the  fagade  of  Arles  is  anterior  to  1152.  Now  the 
Arles  fagade  is  much  more  advanced  than  St.-Gilles.  It  is  more  de¬ 
veloped  than  the  cloister  (Ill.  1344-1348),  and  the  cloister  in  turn  is 
more  developed  than  the  latest  work  of  Brunus  at  Romans  (Ilk 
1334,  1335).  Ten  years  is  the  least  we  can  allow  for  such  progress  as 
took  place  between  the  fagade  of  St.-Gilles  and  that  of  Arles.  This 
brings  us  to  the  conclusion  that  the  fagade  of  St.-Gilles  is  anterior 
to  1142.  Our  deductions  from  style  entirely  confirm  the  documen¬ 
tary  evidence. 

The  lintels  of  S.  Salvatore  of  Lucca  (Ill.  225)  and  S.  Giovanni 
Fuorcivitas  of  Pistoia  (Ill.  199)  show  strong  Provengal  influence. 
They  are  indeed  closely  related  to  the  lintel  at  Nantua  (Ill.  1214  a). 


ST.-GILLES  295 

Now  S.  Giovanni  Fuorcivitas  is  dated  1162.  Therefore  Nantua  is 
earlier  than  1162.  The  facade  of  St.-Trophime  at  Arles  is  earlier 
than  Nantua,  and  St,-Gilles  is  earlier  than  Arles.  We  are  forced  to 
conclude  that  the  frieze  of  St.-Gilles  can  hardly  be  later  than  1140. 

Another  train  of  reasoning  brings  us  to  the  same  result.  The 
fagade  of  Chartres  was  begun  very  shortly  before  1145-  We  have 
seen  that  Chartres  is  later  than  the  frieze  of  St.-Gilles.  Therefore  the 
frieze  must  be  earlier  than  1145. 

Again,  the  master  of  the  Bari  Throne  worked  at  Bari  in  1098.  Let 
us  suppose  that  at  this  time  he  was  as  young  as  possible,  let  us  say 
twenty.  He  could  hardly  have  been  older  than  seventy  when  he 
worked  upon  the  St.-Gilles  frieze.  That  would  prove  that  St.-Gilles 
was  executed  not  more  than  fifty  years  later  than  1098  or  before  1148. 

We  may  therefore  feel  confident  that  the  fagade  of  St.-Gilles  was 
erected  before  1142. 

An  inferior  limit  of  date  is  obviously  furnished  by  the  inscription  of 
1 1 16.  The  sculptures  were  not  executed  before  the  church  was  begun. 

We  therefore  conclude  that  the  fagade  was  erected  between  1116 
and  1 1 42.  Is  it  possible  to  determine  more  accurately  the  date  be¬ 
tween  these  uncomfortably  broad  limits  ? 

The  facts  that  the  Master  of  the  Bari  Throne,  who  was  already  ac¬ 
tive  in  1098  worked  upon  the  fagade;  and  that  the  Angouleme  Mas¬ 
ter  shows  points  of  contact  with  the  lunette  sculptures  of  Angouleme 
which  must  have  been  executed  c.  1115,  might  be  taken  as  indica¬ 
tions  that  the  fagade  dates  from  the  earlier,  rather  than  the  later 
part  of  the  period  in  question.  Neither  is,  however,  a  proof ;  the  Bari 
Master  might  still  have  been  working  as  late  as  1148,  and  the 
Angouleme  Master  might  have  kept  a  retarded  style. 

There  are  other  considerations  which  force  us  to  place  the  fagade 
of  St.-Gilles  in  the  later  part  of  the  period  in  question,  in  the  years 
immediately  preceding  1142. 

First  of  all  there  is  a  documentary  hint.  It  is  natural  to  suppose 
that  the  reconstruction  of  the  church  was  begun  at  the  east  end.  I 
seem  to  find  an  indication  that  such  was  indeed  the  case  at  St.-Gilles. 


296  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

The  description  in  the  Pilgrims’  Guide,  written  probably  in  the  1 120’s, 
does  not  mention  the  church,  as  it  does  in  the  case  of  nearly  all  the 
other  important  centres  of  pilgrimage  —  Perigueux,  Saintes,  St.- 
Sernin  of  Toulouse,  Santiago.  The  explanation  doubtless  is,  that  at 
that  period  there  was  not  much  church  to  mention.  Otherwise  the 
guide  would  surely  have  praised  it,  for  the  desire  and  intention  to 
“puff  ”  everything  at  St.-Gilles  is  unmistakable.  It  is  not  inferring 
too  much  to  conclude  that  at  this  period  the  fagade  had  not  yet  been 
constructed. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  choir  may  have  been  finished.  The  style 
of  the  existing  remains  accords  perfectly  with  the  date  1 116-1129. 
Moreover,  the  Guide  describes  at  length  the  golden  altar ;  this,  there¬ 
fore,  was  already  in  place.  It  is  probable,  that  as  at  Santiago,  the 
altar  was  made  upon  completion  of  the  new  choir. 

We  therefore  infer  from  the  documents  that  the  fagade  of  St.- 
Gilles  was  not  begun  before  1130. 

The  internal  evidence  of  style  leads  to  the  same  conclusion.  It  is 
clear  that  the  source  of  much  at  St.-Gilles  lies  beyond  the  Alps.  The 
Master  of  the  Bari  Throne  doubtless  brought  with  him  knowledge  of 
Apulian  and  Lombard  buildings  which  was  turned  to  full  account  in 
the  design  of  St.-Gilles.  Thus  the  jamb  figures  of  the  St.-Gilles  portal 
(Ill.  1302-1314)  are  clearly  derived  from  Guglielmo’s  work  at  Cre¬ 
mona  (1107-1117);  the  figures  are  similarly  placed  in  the  inner 
jambs ;  the  resemblance  of  type,  even  of  the  faces,  is  striking ;  Brunus 
in  his  *5’/.  Pd’/(?r  (Ill.  1308)  has  even  taken  over  the  accentuated  cords  of 
the  hands  so  characteristic  of  Guglielmo.  Yet  Brunus’  figures  with 
their  conscious  and  elaborate  draperies,  their  developed  style,  are 
obviously  of  a  later  generation.  Twenty  years  is  the  least  we  can 
place  between  the  two.  Similarly  the  lions,  monsters  and  caryatids 
under  the  columns  and  statues  of  St.-Gilles  are  evident  derivatives 
from  Lombard  prototypes,  but  more  elaborate  and  advanced  than 
any  we  find  in  the  work  of  either  Guglielmo  or  Nicolb.  They  can  not 
be  earlier  than  the  late  30’s.  Again  the  idea  of  a  frieze  is  Lombard, 
and  was  first  introduced  by  Guglielmo  at  Modena.  At  St.-Gilles  it 


ST.-GILLES 


297 

was  taken  over,  via  Beaucaire  (Ill.  1292-1298),  but  how  advanced 
this  frieze  of  St.-Gilles  is,  compared  with  the  Lombard  !  The  idea  of 
seeking  inspiration  in  ancient  Roman  remains  may  also  very  prob¬ 
ably  have  come  to  St.-Gilles  from  Italy.  Guglielmo  had  copied 
antique  models  at  Modena,  and  the  rinceaux  at  St.-Gilles  are  almost 
precisely  like  those  of  the  Pisa  fagade.  Here  again  one  feels,  however, 
that  Brunus  carried  much  farther  the  principles  of  his  predecessors. 

Another  road  leads  us  to  the  same  result.  We  have  seen  that 
Brunus  worked  also  at  Romans.  Now  the  church  at  Romans  was 
not  begun  until  1133.^  The  nave  must  have  been  in  construction  in 
the  late  30’s,  for  one  of  the  capitals  (Ill.  1338)  is  by  a  sculptor  of  the 
North,  of  the  Montmorillon-La  Charite  group.  The  fagade  must  be 
slightly  later,  say  of  the  early  40’s.  Now  the  close  relationship  in 
style  between  these  sculptures  (Ill.  1334,  1335)  and  Brunus’  latest 
work  at  St.-Gilles  (Ill.  1306-1311)  forces  the  conclusion  that  the 
latter  can  not  be  very  much  earlier. 

Even  more  conclusive  is  the  evidence  of  style  afforded  by  the  Third 
Master.  We  have  seen  that  he  knew  and  copied  the  tympanum  of 
Autun  (Ill.  80,  81) ;  therefore  he  worked  after  1132.  More  than  that 
he  shows  close  relationship  with  the  sculptor  of  the  tympanum  of  the 
Majestas  Domini  of  St.-Benigne  of  Dijon  (Ill.  315).  Now  we  have 
seen  that  this  tympanum  is  later  than  1137. 

All  this  leads  us  to  conclude  that  the  west  fagade  of  St.-Gilles  was 
erected  in  the  years  immediately  preceding  1142.  The  variation  of 
style  displayed  by  the  works  of  Brunus  justifies  the  conclusion  that 
the  construction  lasted  some  years  —  it  may  possibly  have  been 
begun  as  early  as  1135. 

When  the  date  of  St.-Gilles  has  been  determined,  the  remaining 
monuments  of  Provence  quickly  fall  into  place.  If  we  put  beside  each 
other  Brunus’  work  at  Romans  (Ill.  1334,  1335),  the  St.-Trophime 
from  the  cloister  at  Arles  (Ill.  1345,  1346)  and  the  adossed  sculptures 
of  the  Arles  fagade  (Ill.  1371,  1373),  we  shall  perceive  a  close  rela¬ 
tionship,  and  a  steady  development,  especially  in  the  “organ-pipe” 

'  Giraud,  193. 


298  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

draperies.  Romans  (Ill.  1334,  1335)  is  clearly  the  earliest;  then  the 
cloister  of  Arles  ;  and  the  fagade  of  Arles  is  latest.  Now  it  is  possible 
to  date  the  facade  of  Arles  very  precisely.  We  have  seen  that  it  was 
copied  in  1152  by  Guillaume  Martin  at  St.-Andre-le-Bas  of  Vienne. 
It  was  therefore  completed  by  this  time.  It  could  not,  however,  have 
been  erected  much  before,  for  ten  years  is  the  least  we  can  allow  for 
the  evolution  we  have  indicated,  and  which  began  in  1142  or  there¬ 
abouts.  Now  the  conclusion  we  have  drawn  from  the  style  that  the 
facade  was  completed  in  1152  corresponds  with  the  documentary 
evidence.  For  we  know  that  in  this  very  year  the  body  of  St.- 
Trophime  was  translated  from  the  Aliscamps  into  the  church,  which 
in  consequence  changed  its  title  from  St.-Etienne  to  St.-Trophime. 
Without  doubt  the  translation  took  place  when  the  new  fagade  had 
been  finished.  We  may  therefore  consider  the  facade  of  Arles  as  a 
dated  monument  of  1152. 

We  have  remarked  that  the  earliest  part  of  the  cloister,  the  north 
gallery  and  especially  the  west  end  of  the  north  gallery,  seem  a  little 
earlier  than  the  fagade.  That  the  north  gallery  is  anterior  to  1151  is 
indicated  by  an  epitaph  of  that  date  in  the  wall.’- 

The  sculptures  of  St.-Trophime  are  evidently  direct  derivatives  of 
St.-Gilles.  Undoubtedly,  however,  they  were  also  influenced  from 
other  directions  as  well.  Certain  draperies  surely  came  from  Char¬ 
tres.  The  face  of  the  Christ  in  the  Majestas  Domini  of  the  tympanum 
(Ill.  1372)  recalls  somewhat  vaguely  the  face  of  the  Christ  in  the 
tympanum  of  Moissac  (Ill.  341).  The  scene  of  the  Temptation  (Ill. 
1367),  the  corded  hands  and  feet  (Ill.  1371)  and  the  supporting  figure 
below  the  trumeau  (Ill.  1366)  make  us  think  of  the  art  of  Guglielmo ; 
the  superb  nude  reclining  figure  of  the  south  podium  (Ill.  1368)  re¬ 
calls  the  Eve  of  Autun  ;  the  three  patriarchs  with  souls  in  their  bosoms 
(Ill.  1370)  could  only  have  been  derived  from  Byzantine  icon- 

I  VI.  IDVS  OCT 
OBIIT  PONCIVS  DE 
BABICO  CAPVT  SCOPE  ET 
CANONICVS  REGVLARIS 
SCI  TROPHIMI  ANNO 
DNI  MCLI 


ST.-GILLES 


299 


ography ;  the  Three  Maries  of  the  cloister  (Ill.  1344)  are  possibly  de¬ 
rived  from  lost  reliefs  of  Beaucaire,  and  foreshadow  Armentia  (Ill. 
761)  and  Estella  (Ill.  785) ;  the  Ascension  of  the  cloister  (Ill.  1353), 
like  the  entire  design  of  this  part  of  the  structure,  is  probably  derived 
from  Santo  Domingo  de  Silos  (Ill.  672) ;  and  the  gored  caps  in  the 
Stoning  of  St.  Stephen  of  the  facade  (Ill.  1374)  come  from  Toulouse 
(Ill.  310,  312). 

In  the  east  gallery  of  the  cloisters,  the  style  of  the  sculptures 
changes.  It  is  evident  that  construction  proceeded  slowly,  and  that 
this  gallery,  especially  its  southern  end,  is  notably  later  than  the 
north  gallery.  By  an  entirely  different  hand  are  the  Gamaliel  (Ill. 
1362),  the  figure  adossed  to  the  next  pier  to  the  north  (Ill.  1358), 
several  capitals  and  the  holy-water  basin  (Ill.  1363).^ 

The  limit  ante  quern  for  the  eastern  gallery  is  supplied  by  an  epi¬ 
taph  of  1 18 1  in  the  wall.^  This  documentary  evidence  is  confirmed 
by  a  study  of  the  style.  The  folds  of  the  draperies  of  the  “Gamaliel 
Master,”  especially  those  of  the  supporting  figure  of  the  holy-water 
basin,  are  much  like  those  of  the  consoles  which  are  the  only  sur¬ 
viving  remains  of  the  once  splendid  portal  of  Ste.-Marthe  of  Taras- 
con  (Ill.  I4O4  a,  1404  b).  Only  it  is  evident  that  the  folds  of  Arles  are 
less  developed,  slightly  earlier.  Now  the  portal  of  Ste.-Marthe  was 
part  of  the  church  begun  in  1187  and  finished  in  1197.^  The  sculp¬ 
tures  of  the  cloister  at  St.-Trophime  are  therefore  earlier  than  ii  87; 
we  may  assign  them  to  c.  1180,  which  agrees  with  the  documentary 
evidence  of  the  epitaph,  showing  that  they  were  completed  before 
1 181. 

^  The  strongly  Nicolo-esque  character  of  the  supporting  figure  should  be  compared  with  the 
holy-water  basin  at  Romans  and  with  the  lions  in  the  court-yard  of  Fenway  Court. 

2  III  IDVS  SEPTEBRIS  OBIIT  .  .  .  etc. 

ANNO  DNI  MCLXXX  PRIMO 

^  Inscription  east  of  portal; 

VIGITI:  NO  VIES:  SEPTE;  CU;  MILLE:  RE 
LAPSIS:  ANO:  POSTREMO:  NOBIS:  PA 
TET;  OSPITA:  XPE  MILLE  DUCETIS 
TRASACTIS  MINVS  AT  TRIBVS:  AN 
NIS  UMBERTUS:  PRESUL:  ROST  AG 
NO:  PRESULE;  SECUM:  IN  PRIMA: 
lUNII :  CONSECRAT ;  ECCLESIAM : 


300  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

The  sculptured  frieze  of  the  cathedral  of  Nimes  (Ill.  1378-1383)  is 
clearly  a  derivative  of  the  frieze  at  St.-Gilles  (Ill.  13 15-1322),  but  one 
which  in  brutal  energy,  in  realism  and  in  vigour  of  modelling  sur¬ 
passes  its  original.  It  must  date  from  about  1150. 

The  powerful  lions  of  Aix-en-Provence  (Ill.  1331)  show  the  same 
vigour  and  massiveness;  they  doubtless  date  from  about  the  same 
period.  It  is  believed  that  they  once  formed  the  support  of  a  throne, 
which  indeed,  may  very  well  have  been  the  case.  The  coarse  and 
rather  uninteresting  work  in  the  cloister  of  Aix  (Ill.  1406-1408) 
seems  midway  between  the  cloister  of  Notre-Dame-des-Doms  of 
Avignon  (Ill.  1342,  1343)  and  the  last  work  in  the  cloister  of  St.- 
Trophime  (Ill.  1359-1365) ;  it  may  be  ascribed  to  c.  1165. 

The  sculptures  now  ^  flanking  the  portal  in  the  cloister  of  Mont- 
majour  (Ill.  1332,  1333)  are  related  to  the  work  of  the  Third  Master 
at  St.-Gilles,  but  are  evidently  later,  as  the  draperies  are  more  de¬ 
veloped.  They  were  perhaps  executed  about  1145. 

Let  us  return  to  the  later  work  at  St.-Gilles.  We  have  already 
remarked  that  this  shows  the  influences  of  La  Charite  (Ill.  1 15-122), 
Chartres  and  St.-Junien  (Ill.  450-452)  which  are  not  traceable  in  the 
original  facade. ^  Since  St.-Junien  is  not  earlier  than  1150,  the  later 
work  at  St.-Gilles  must  certainly  fall  within  the  second  half  of  the 
XII  century. 

One  of  the  peculiarities  of  the  later  work  at  St.-Gilles  is  the  perfo¬ 
rated  ornament  on  the  garment  of  the  Church  (Ill.  1385).  The  earliest 
example  of  this  system  of  decoration  with  which  I  am  acquainted  is 
the  halo  of  the  Moon  in  the  Santo  Domingo  de  Silos  Deposition  (Ill. 
669).  Perforation  is  here  used  with  the  utmost  restraint  and  timid¬ 
ity;  and  so  it  continued  to  be  used  throughout  the  first  half  of  the 
XII  century.  At  St.-Jouin-de-Marne  (1132)  the  garment  of  the  St. 
Peter  is  decorated  with  a  pattern  formed  of  three  perforated  dots 
arranged  to  form  a  triangle  (Ill.  949),  and  the  same  motive  reappears 
in  a  fragment  of  a  lectern  in  the  museum  of  Marseille  (Ill.  1410).  It  is 

’  They  are  not  in  their  original  position. 

*  See  above,  p.  292. 


ST.-GILLES 


301 


perhaps  the  translation  into  stone  of  a  motive  which  was  already  old 
in  Irish  manuscripts  ^  and  which  still  survives  in  Asia  Minor  rugs  of 
the  XVI  century.  At  La  Charite  (Ill.  115-118)  about  1140,  per¬ 
forated  decoration  was  carried  to  a  point  hitherto  unequalled  in 
sculpture.  But  at  La  Charite  the  motive  is  used  with  much  greater 
moderation  than  in  the  Church  (Ill.  1385)  of  St.-Gilles.  Such  exuber¬ 
ance  is  surely  a  mark  of  the  last  quarter  of  the  XII  century,  and 
recalls  the  works  of  Benedetto.  The  Church  in  the  Parma  Deposition 
of  1178  has  for  example  a  garment  very  like  that  of  the  Church  at 
St.-Gilles.  The  relationship  of  our  artist  with  Benedetto  is  still 
further  suggested  by  the  figure  to  the  extreme  left  in  the  tympanum 
of  the  Crucifixion,  which  has  a  face  of  strongly  Antelami-esque 
character,  and  by  the  position  of  the  Synagogue  ^  at  St.-Gilles,  rigidly 
tipped  as  Benedetto  so  often  drew  his  figures. 

Other  mannerisms  of  the  tympanum,  however,  suggest  works 
nearer  home.  The  face  of  the  Sun  (Ill.  1385)  is  very  like  the  face  of 
the  Gamaliel  of  the  St.-Trophime  cloister  (Ill.  1362).  The  draperies 
at  the  bottom  also  have  the  same  stupid  character  as  those  of  the 
“Gamaliel  Master.”  The  draperies  on  the  left  thigh  of  the  southern 
angel  at  St.-Gilles  (Ill.  1394)  have  an  unmistakable  resemblance  to 
those  of  the  “Gamaliel  Master”  even  while  reproducing  most  assidu¬ 
ously  Beaucaire  (Ill.  1299).  The  draperies  of  the  northern  angel, 
despite  Brunus-esque  digs,  have  also  obviously  a  late  character 
(Ill.  1392). 

The  composition  of  the  southern  tympanum  (Ill.  1386)  was  cer¬ 
tainly  very  directly  inspired  by  Beaucaire  (Ill.  1299)  where,  as  we 
have  seen,^  the  same  subject  was  represented  in  the  tympanum  in  the 
same  manner.  The  Crucifixion  tympanum  on  the  other  hand  appears 
to  have  been  imitated  from  Die  (Ill.  1230)  and  Champagne  (Ill. 
1186).  It  seems  that  passing  years  had  no  power  to  eradicate  the  St.- 

^  See,  for  example,  the  Book  of  Kells,  fol.  28  b,  illustrated  by  Zimmermann,  III,  Taf.  173. 

*  The  Church  and  the  Synagogue  seem  to  have  been  introduced  into  the  iconographic  for¬ 
mula  of  the  sculptors  in  stone  about  the  eighth  decade  of  the  XII century.  The  earliest  example 
of  their  appearance  which  I  know  is  the  tympanum  of  Sl.-Benigne  of  Dijon  (III.  134),  a  monu¬ 
ment  not  earlier  than  1170. 

^  See  above,  pp.  277,  278. 


302  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

Gilles  habit  of  taking  over  other  people’s  compositions.  The  move¬ 
ment  of  the  St.-Gilles  angels  ^  (Ill.  1392-1396),  the  posture  of  the 
Virgin  in  the  Adoration  (Ill.  1386),  the  insipidity  of  the  draperies  of 
the  prophet  in  this  tympanum  (Ill.  1386)  and  the  general  flabbiness 
of  modelling  throughout  show  close  relationship  between  the  later 
work  at  St.-Gilles  and  the  tympanum  of  Maguelonne  (Ill.  1384). 
The  latter  we  have  seen  is  a  dated  monument  of  1178.^ 

Finally,  we  notice  that  the  peculiar  ornament  on  the  neck-band  of 
the  third  apostle  to  the  left  of  Christ  in  the  scene  of  the  Magdalen 
Anointing  Christ’s  Feet  (Ill.  1390)  is  like  the  neck-bands  of  the 
apostles  from  St.-Benoit  of  the  Musee  des  Antiquaires  de  I’Ouest  at 
Poitiers  (Ill.  1133).®  There  are  many  reasons  for  believing  that  the 
latter  can  not  be  earlier  than  1170. 

So  we  are  confirmed  in  our  conclusion  that  the  later  work  at  St.- 
Gilles  dates  from  about  1180.  But  it  is  time  to  turn  to  earlier  and 
more  vital  works. 

^  The  composition  of  the  southern  angel  at  St.-Gilles  recalls  an  ivory  book-cover  in  the 
Stadtsbibliothek  at  Leipzig,  a  work  of  the  Ada  group  of  the  IX  century,  representing  St. 
Michael  (illustrated  by  Goldschmidt,  I,  No.  ii  a). 

^  See  above,  p.  268. 

^  Mr.  Priest  calls  my  attention  to  the  fact  that  this  ornament  seems  like  the  simplification 
of  one  used  by  the  Etampes  Master  at  Chartres. 


VII 


ANGOULEME 

In  the  West  of  France,  sculpture  developed  later  than  in  Bur¬ 
gundy,  Lombardy  or  Spain.  The  school  of  the  XI  century  which  has 
left  us  such  astonishing  creations  at  Elildesheim,  at  Arles-sur-Tech 
(Ill.  518),  at  Regensburg  (Ill.  1279—1282),  at  Santo  Domingo  de  Silos 
(Ill.  666-673),  Oviedo  (Ill.  656-660),  at  Sahagun  (Ill.  770),  at 
Charlieu  (Ill.  4)  and  at  Cluny  (Ill.  5-9),  did  not  flourish  on  the  wind¬ 
swept  Atlantic  sea-board.  When,  however,  we  reflect  how  close  this 
region  lies  to  the  Ile-de-France,  where  sculpture  worthy  of  the  name 
did  not  appear  at  all  until  the  fourth  decade  of  the  XII  century,  the 
wonder  perhaps  is  not  that  the  XI  century  carving  of  the  West  was 
crude,  but  that  figure  sculpture  existed  at  all. 

The  church  of  Airvault,  begun  between  1093  and  1096  ^  and  conse¬ 
crated  in  1 100,2  possesses  sculptures  adossed  to  the  wall  flanking  the 
vaulting  capitals  (Ill.  898-900),  and  also  sculptured  capitals.  We 
have  here  a  dated  and  admitted  work  of  the  end  of  the  XI  century. 

The  striking  fact  in  regard  to  the  sculptures  of  Airvault,  aside  from 
their  crudity,  is  the  similarity  in  the  folds  of  certain  draperies  to 
those  in  the  south  portal  of  St.-Sernin  of  Toulouse  (Ill.  308-318). 
Now  St.-Sernin  of  Toulouse  is  later  than  Airvault,  but  it  is  difficult 
to  admit  that  the  advanced  school  of  the  pilgrimage  could  have  been 
inffuenced  by  the  retarded  work  in  the  West.  The  explanation  I  be¬ 
lieve  is  this:  The  ateliers  of  Toulouse  and  Santiago  were  closely  in¬ 
terrelated,  and  we  find  the  same  sculptors  travelling  back  and  forth 
from  one  to  the  other.  Now  while  no  work  anterior  to  the  XII  cen¬ 
tury  has  come  down  to  us  at  Santiago,  it  is  certain  that  an  atelier  of 
sculpture  must  have  existed  there  much  befpre,  and  probably  from 
the  beginning  of  the  reconstruction  of  the  cathedral  in  1078.  It  is  not 

2  Con^.  Arch.,  1910,  LXXVII,  119. 


*  Robouchon,  6. 


304  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

unreasonable  to  suppose  that  the  work  at  Airvault  may  have  been 
influenced  by  the  Xl-century  atelier  of  Santiago. 

In  addition  to  the  sculptures  which  actually  form  part  of  the  build¬ 
ing,  Airvault  contains  a  sculptured  tomb  (Ill.  903)  and  a  sculptured 
altar-frontal  (Ill.  964).  The  tomb  is  that  of  the  abbot  Pierre  who 
built  the  church  and  died  in  mo.  It  may  consequently  be  consid¬ 
ered  a  dated  monument.  The  altar-frontal  is  of  very  similar  style, 
but  since  it  is,  perhaps,  a  little  more  advanced,  it  may  be  assigned 
to  about  1 1 15. 

All  the  work  at  Airvault  is  characterized  by  that  strong  Lombard 
influence  which  we  shall  find  is  one  of  the  marked  and  unexplained 
peculiarities  of  the  school  of  the  West.  The  architecture  of  the 
church  is  adorned  with  arched  corbel-tables;  the  capital  of  Adam 
and  Eve  (Ill.  901)  distinctly  recalls  the  manner  of  Guglielmo;  the 
supporting  figures  under  the  tomb  of  the  abbot  Pierre  (Ill.  903)  are 
obviously  of  Lombard  derivation. 

The  two  reliefs  of  Ste.-Radegonde  of  Poitiers  (Ill.  907,  908)  are  of 
better  quality.  One  feels  distinctly  in  them,  although  in  strangely 
weakened  form,  the  inspiration  which  emanated  from  Cluny.  They 
are  degenerates,  but  after  all  of  the  race  of  the  older  portal  at  Char- 
lieu  (Ill.  4)  or  of  the  Virgin  at  Sahagun  (Ill.  770),  as  the  animals  of  one 
of  the  capitals  of  the  ambulatory  (Ill.  91 1)  are  an  echo  of  the  much 
finer  ones  of  the  nave  of  St.-Martin-d’Ainay  at  Lyon.  The  Ste.- 
Radegonde  reliefs  obviously  are  not  now  in  their  original  position, 
but  were  embedded  at  a  comparatively  recent  epoch  in  the  narthex 
below  the  tower.  It  unfortunately  seems  impossible  to  determine 
where  they  were  placed.  Their  style,  however,  justifies  the  conclu¬ 
sion  that  they  belonged  to  the  church  built  between  1083  and  1099. 
They  are,  in  fact,  by  the  same  hand  as  the  Daniel  capital  of  the  am¬ 
bulatory  (Ill.  909)  which  is  admitted  to  be  of  1083-1099. 

When  we  turn  from  Ste.-Radegonde  to  the  sculptures  of  the 
lunettes  of  the  cathedral  of  Angouleme  (Ill.  936-940),  we  recognize 
between  the  two  a  close  relationship.  There  are  the  same  draperies 
cut  in  the  same  rope-like  forms,  and  falling  in  the  same  characteristic 


ANGOULEME  305 

wave-patterns  along  the  lower  edges.  x\ngouleme  appears  slightly 
more  advanced;  the  execution  is  better,  and  there  is  more  move¬ 
ment.  Seven  or  eight  or  at  most  ten  years  might  easily  account  for 
this  development.  It  is  therefore  with  considerable  astonishment 
that  we  find  current  archaeological  opinion  ascribes  the  fagade  of 
Angouleme  to  the  second  half  of  the  XII  century.  And  when  we 
compare  the  primitive  style  of  these  sculptures  with  that  of  monu¬ 
ments  with  which  they  are  supposed  to  be  contemporary,  such  as, 
for  example,  the  west  portal  of  Chartres  or  the  transept  portals  of 
Bourges,  our  astonishment  deepens  into  amazement. 

We  naturally  turn  with  haste  to  the  reasoning  on  which  this  dating 
is  based.  We  are  told,  first  of  all,  what  alas  is  only  too  true,  that  the 
cathedral  of  Angouleme  lost  all  character  in  the  XIX  century  resto¬ 
ration.  To  study  its  archaeology  we  are  therefore  advised  to  go  not 
to  the  building  itself,  but  to  the  manuscript  study  of  Michon  who 
saw  the  church  before  it  was  reconstructed.  Now  Michon  thought 
that  the  western  bay  was  earlier  than  the  rest  of  the  church;  we 
are  asked  to  accept  this  as  a  proof  that  it  and  the  fagade  are  a  half 
century  later  I 

Nor  do  I  find  the  other  arguments  for  the  late  dating  of  Angou¬ 
leme  more  convincing.  The  lunette  sculptures  of  Angouleme  (Ill. 
936-940),  we  are  told,  are  by  the  same  atelier  {sic)  as  the  sculptures 
of  St.-Amand-de-Boixe  (Ill.  941-945).  These  last  are  thought  to  be 
dated  1170. 

Now  it  is  true  that  St.-Amand-de-Boixe  was  consecrated  in  1170. 
But  there  was  an  earlier  consecration  in  1125.  The  monument  as 
it  stands  corresponds  perfectly  with  the  documents.  Begun  at  the 
eastern  end,  as  was  the  custom  (the  choir  was  rebuilt  in  the  XIV 
century),  the  transepts  with  the  sculptures  and  the  east  bay  of 
the  nave  were  finished  in  1125.  Then  work  was  interrupted,  ap¬ 
parently  for  a  number  of  years.  Subsequently  the  construction  of 
the  nave  was  resumed  and  completed  in  i  170.  Nothing  could  be 
clearer. 

Since,  however,  the  fact  that  the  western  part  of  the  nave  is  later 


3o6  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

seems  to  have  escaped  attention,  it  will  be  well  to  note  down  some  of 
the  proofs  that  such  is  the  case : 

(1)  The  capitals  of  the  nave,  broad-leaved  and  crocheted,  are  of 
a  strikingly  different,  and  obviously  later  type  from  those  of  the 
transepts.  They  must  be  separated  by  an  interval  of  at  least  twenty- 
five  years. 

(2)  There  is  an  equally  striking  difference  of  style  between  the 
west  portal.  Ill.  1135  (that  is  to  say  the  little  of  it  that  is  an¬ 
cient),  and  the  decoration  of  the  west  facade  of  the  north  transept 
(Ill.  944,  945). 

(3)  The  design  of  the  church  was  completely  changed  when  work 
was  resumed  after  it  had  been  interrupted  at  the  east  bay  of  the 
nave. 

(4)  The  groin  vaults  of  the  side  aisles  in  the  east  bay  of  the  nave 
are  replaced  by  barrel  vaults  in  the  western  bays. 

(5)  The  ornamental  frieze  on  the  north  exterior  wall,  begun  in  the 
east  bay,  is  discontinued  in  the  western  bays. 

(6)  The  side-aisle  window  in  the  east  bay  is  placed  higher  than  in 
the  western  bays. 

(7)  The  string-course  of  the  abacus  of  this  window  is  brusquely 
interrupted  where  the  two  constructions  adjoin. 

(8)  In  the  barrel  vault  of  the  nave  is  visible  a  break  in  the  masonry 
between  the  easternmost  and  western  bays  of  the  nave. 

(9)  This  break  continues  in  the  masonry  of  the  easternmost  piers 
of  the  nave  on  both  sides. 

(10)  The  arcade  arch  of  the  east  bay  of  the  nave  is  narrower  and 
higher  than  those  of  the  western  bays. 

(i  i)  The  high  dado  separating  nave  and  side  aisles  in  the  eastern 
bay  is  discontinued  in  the  western  bays. 

(12)  The  abacus  string-course  of  the  eastern  bays  is  brusquely 
interrupted  at  the  point  of  junction,  and  a  new  string-course  begun 
a  metre  further  down. 

(13)  On  the  south  side  of  the  nave  the  design  of  the  upper  string¬ 
course  is  changed  at  the  point  of  junction. 


ANGOULEME 


307 

(14)  The  capitals  of  the  side-aisle  responds  are  placed  at  a  lower 
level  in  the  eastern  bay  than  in  the  western  bays. 

(15)  Blind  arches,  decorating  the  side-aisle  wall,  non-existent  in 
the  eastern  bay,  are  introduced  into  the  western  bays. 

It  seems  therefore  evident  that  it  is  a  grave  error  to  consider  the 
sculptures  of  St.-xAmand-de-Boixe  as  dated  monuments  of  1170.  They 
are  indeed  dated,  but  they  belong  to  the  church  consecrated  in  1125. 

There  is  consequently  no  reason  for  assigning  the  fagade  of  Angou- 
leme  to  the  second  half  of  the  XII  century.  The  documents  inform 
us  categorically  that  the  cathedral  was  begun  by  the  bishop  Girard, 
who  was  elected  in  iioi  ;  built  by  him  (he  died  in  1136)  and  conse¬ 
crated  in  1128.^  It  follows  that  the  fagade  sculptures  were  exe¬ 
cuted  between  iioi  and  1128. 

There  is,  indeed,  even  more  conclusive  documentary  evidence 
upon  the  subject.  In  the  spandrel  between  the  two  great  engaged 
arches  which  on  the  southern  side  of  the  fagade  rise  from  the  ground 
to  the  top-most  gallery  is  inscribed  a  monogram.  M.  de  Mely  ^  has 
read  this;  it  is  the  name  Itius.  Now  there  is  in  the  cathedral  of 
Angouleme  an  epitaph  of  Iteus  Archembaldi  who  died  in  1125,  can- 
onicus  huius  matricis  aecclesiae  in  qua  multa  bona  operatus  est.  A  con¬ 
temporary  chronicle  is  a  little  more  explicit  in  regard  to  the  good 
works  of  Itier  Archembauld.  He  furnished  half  the  funds  for  the  con¬ 
struction  of  the  walls  of  the  new  cathedral.®  We  begin  to  understand 
why  his  monogram  was  placed  upon  the  fagade.  It  was  because  it 
had  been  built,  at  least  in  part,  at  his  expense.  Since  Itier  Archem¬ 
bauld  died  in  1125,  and  his  monogram  is  placed  in  the  upper  part  of 
the  fagade,  it  is  clear  that  the  fagade  up  to  this  level,  or  nearly  so, 
must  have  been  erected  from  funds  given  by  him  before  1125. 

^  A  document  of  1128  signed  by  the  bishop  of  Angouleme,  Girard,  is  dated  tertio  die  post 
dedicationem.  The  author  of  the  article  in  the  Congr'es  Archeologique,  1912,  LXXIX,  61,  tried  to 
explain  this  away  by  supposing  that  it  was  a  quotation  from  the  calendar  of  the  diocese;  he 
believed  it  to  mean  the  third  day  after  the  day  on  which  the  anniversary  of  the  dedication  is 
celebrated.  That  also  this  interpretation  is  impossible  has  already  been  shown  by  M.  de  la 
Martinere.  (See  Bulletin  Monumental,  1920,  173).  There  is  no  doubt  that  the  cathedral  of 
Angouleme  was  consecrated  in  1128. 

^  294,  ®  Bulletin  Monumental,  1920,  274-275. 


3o8  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

Comparison  of  the  style  of  Angouleme  with  numerous  other  dated 
monuments  leads  us  to  the  same  conclusion.  The  abbey  of  Fonte- 
vrault  was  consecrated  in  1119.  Parts  of  earlier  buildings  were  in¬ 
corporated,  and  additions  were  subsequently  made,  but  it  is  clear 
that  the  nave  which  has  come  down  to  us  belonged  to  the  building 
consecrated  by  Callixtus  II.  Now  the  style  of  the  capitals  of  this 
nave  (Ill.  923)  is  obviously  contemporary  with  that  of  the  sculptures 
of  Angouleme.^ 

The  style  of  the  fagade  of  Angouleme  is  also  obviously  contempo¬ 
rary  with  that  of  the  east  end  of  St.-Eutrope  of  Saintes  (Ill.  918). 
But  the  construction  of  the  choir  of  St.-Eutrope  was  doubtless  under¬ 
taken  when  the  crypt  was  finished  in  1096,  and  the  church  was  com¬ 
pleted,  or  virtually  so,  when  visited  by  the  author  of  the  Pilgrims’ 
Guide  about  1129.  Again  we  are  led  to  the  conclusion  that  Angou¬ 
leme  must  be  of  the  first  third  of  the  XII  century. 

We  know  that  in  general  Romanesque  sculptures  were  executed 
before  being  placed  in  position  in  the  building,  and  we  know  that 
they  were  often  prepared  at  the  very  beginning  of  the  works  that 
they  might  be  ready  when  the  masops  had  need  of  them.  Mediaeval 
buildings  were  constructed  sometimes  in  vertical,  sometimes  in  hori¬ 
zontal  sections.  At  least  the  fagade  of  Angouleme  was  constructed 
horizontally.  The  sculptures  are  of  three  distinct  styles :  the  lunettes 
are  the  oldest,  then  the  sculptures  in  the  arches  above  and  finally 
those  of  the  top-most  story.  If  we  compare  the  latter,  the  angel  of 
St.  Matthew  (Ill.  929),  for  example,  with  the  tympanum  of  St. 
Michel  d’Entraigues  (Ill.  1006),  dated  1137,  we  shall  perceive  that 
the  cathedral  sculptures  are  distinctly  earlier.  The  fagade  of  Angou¬ 
leme  must  therefore  have  been  completed  by  1128  or  at  least  very 
shortly  after. 

Everything  would  therefore  indicate  the  lunette  sculptures  were 
executed  about  1 1 10  or  soon  after.  They  have  much  such  movement 
as  is  characteristic  of  the  tympanum  of  the  south  portal  of  St.-Sernin 

1  Nothing  but  an  inveterate  habit  of  post-dating  everything  can  account  for  the  ascription 
of  this  nave  to  the  second  quarter  of  the  XII  century  {Cong.  Arch.,  1910,  LXXVII,  50). 


ANGOULEME 


309 


(Ill.  308-318).  Closer  analogies  are,  however,  to  be  found  with  the 
sculpture  of  Lombardy.  The  draperies  are  those  characteristic  of 
Guglielmo.^  The  same  folds  with  the  same  wave  pattern  at  the 
bottom  are  found,  for  example,  in  the  angel  of  the  Cremona  Expul¬ 
sion,  a  work  executed  between  1107  and  1117.  These  draperies  are 
originally  derived  from  manuscripts.  They  are  found  in  miniatures 
of  the  German  school  of  the  X  century,-  in  bibles  of  Angers,^  and 
Amiens  ^  of  the  same  period,  and  in  an  English  manuscript  of  the 
XII  century.®  It  is  not  entirely  clear  whether  these  manuscript 
draperies  were  first  translated  into  stone  by  Guglielmo  and  copied 
from  him  by  the  master  of  Angouleme,  or  whether  the  reverse  was 
the  case.  I  incline,  however,  to  think  the  latter  and  to  suppose 
that  Guglielmo,  especially  in  his  later  works,  was  influenced  by 
Angouleme.  The  draperies  in  question  are  found  more  consistently 
and  persistently  at  Angouleme  than  at  Cremona;  at  Modena  they 
hardly  occur. 

The  conjecture  may  indeed  be  risked  that  Guglielmo  and  the  mas¬ 
ter  of  Augouleme  came  into  personal  contact  with  each  other.  At 
any  rate,  it  is  certain  that  the  Angouleme  work  was  strongly  in¬ 
fluenced  by  Italian  models.  Like  Guglielmo,  the  /Angouleme  master 
keeps  both  feet  of  his  figures  firmly  planted  on  the  ground,  even 
when  the  figures  are  in  motion  ;  like  Guglielmo,  he  uses  two  parallel 
lines  to  indicate  the  modelling  of  his  draperies.  The  ornamental 
decoration  at  Angouleme  is  strongly  Lombardic.  The  rinceau  be¬ 
neath  the  lunette  might  have  been  sculptured  for  a  church  of  the 
Parmigiano  c.  mo;  the  interlaces  of  animals  and  foliage  over  the 
lunettes  are  equally  north  Italian.  Most  striking  of  all  is  the  frieze 
to  the  right  of  the  central  portal  beneath  the  lunette.  We  have 

^The  wide  diffusion  of  the  art  of  Guglielmo  throughout  Europe  is  becoming  increasingly 
evident.  Dehio,  176,  has  remarked  that  the  portal  of  Andlau  in  Alsace  is  inspired  by  Nonan- 
tola. 

^  See,  for  example,  the  Perikopenbuch  Kaiser  Heinrichs  II,  Reichenau  school,  before  1014, 
illustrated  by  Leidinger,  V,  18  or  the  Bamberger  Apocalypse,  ed.  Wollflin. 

^  Bible  of  St.-Aubin  of  Angers,  Angers,  Bibl.  de  la  Ville,  No.  4,  ed.  Boinet,  PI.  CLII. 

^  Illustrated  by  Haseloff  in  Michel,  I,  2,  748. 

®  British  Museum  MS.  37472,  No.  i. 


310  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

already  seen  ^  how  closely  this  is  connected  with  ultramontane 
monuments. 

The  crouching  attitude  of  the  lunette  figures  at  Angouleme  is 
probably  derived  from  manuscripts.  We  find  parallel  drawing  in  the 
elders  of  the  Codex  Aureus  of  St.  Emmeran  of  Ratisbonne,^  a  manu¬ 
script  which  dates  from  870.  and  in  the  sacramentary  of  Mar- 
mou tiers  ^  of  c.  850. 

The  motive  of  placing  three  figures  crouched  or  in  motion  in  a 
tympanum  or  lunette  enjoyed  a  certain  popularity  in  the  first  third 
of  the  XII  century,  before  the  more  elaborate  compositions  inaugu¬ 
rated  at  Cluny  came  into  vogue.  This  is  the  type  of  the  tympanum 
at  San  Pablo  del  Campo  (Ill.  550)  of  Barcelona,  a  church  consecrated 
in  1125.  It  appears  also  to  have  been  the  type  of  the  ancient  tym¬ 
panum  of  Maguelonne  (Ill.  1 287, 1 288),  which  as  we  have  seen  ^  must 
date  from  c.  1120. 

In  the  local  museum  at  Angouleme  is  preserved  a  relief  by  the  same 
hand  that  executed  the  lunette  sculptures  of  the  cathedral.  This, 
too,  seems  to  have  come  from  a  lunette.  I  am  tempted  to  conjecture 
that  it  may  have  formed  part  of  the  central  tympanum,  destroyed  in 
the  XVIII  century,  and  now  replaced  by  a  modern  pastiche.  The 
museum  fragment  is  of  importance  because  unrestored.  It  therefore 
affords  an  opportunity  for  obtaining  a  more  exact  conception  of  the 
style  and  quality  of  our  master. 

The  first  atelier  at  Angouleme  seems  to  have  influenced  later 
sculptors  of  distant  regions,  more  apparently  than  the  later  work  of 
the  upper  zones  of  the  fagade.  We  have  already  seen  that  the  Angou¬ 
leme  Master  of  St.-Gilles  derived  his  art  from  this  source.^  He 
worked  at  St.-Gilles  in  the  fourth  decade  of  the  XII  century,  or 
twenty  years  after  the  Angouleme  lunettes  had  been  executed. 

Another  interesting  derivative  of  the  lunettes  of  Angouleme  is  the 
relief  representing  St.  Paul  and  St.  John  at  the  cathedral  of  Zamora 

^  See  above,  p.  63. 

Munich,  Kgl.  Bibl.  lat.  140,000,  illustrated  by  Boinet,  PL  CXVI. 

®  Preserved  at  Autun,  Bibl.  de  la  Ville,  No.  ipbis,  ed.  Boinet,  PI.  XLIII. 

^  Above,  p.  270.  5  See  above,  p.  273,  274. 


ANGOULEME 


311 

(Ill.  740).  The  relationship  to  Angouleme  is  evident.  The  posture 
of  the  St.  John  must  have  been  inspired  by  the  apostle  to  the  left  of 
the  northernmost  lunette  at  Angouleme  (Ill.  936) ;  the  facial  type  of 
the  St.  John  seems  studied  from  the  central  apostle  of  the  same 
lunette;  the  hair  convention  of  the  St.  John  is  the  hair  convention 
of  the  apostle  to  the  left  in  the  xA-iigouleme  lunette ;  the  folds  of  the 
draperies  of  the  upper  part  of  the  under-garment  of  the  St.  John 
reproduce  the  corresponding  ones  of  the  apostle  to  the  right  in  the 
Angouleme  lunette  ;  the  face  of  the  St.  Paul  is  the  face  of  the  apostle 
to  the  right  of  the  lunette  north  of  the  central  portal  at  Angouleme ; 
the  vertically  falling  folds  of  the  outer  mantle  of  both  the  Zamora 
figures  is  evidently  derived  from  those  of  the  Angouleme  lunettes; 
the  draperies  of  the  thigh  of  the  St.  Paul  (Ill.  740)  are  like  those  of 
the  thigh  of  the  central  figure  in  the  northern  lunette  at  Angouleme 
(Ill.  936).  It  is  therefore  certain  that  the  Zamora  sculptor  had  seen 
and  studied  the  lunettes  of  Angouleme. 

It  was  not  only  Angouleme  that  he  observed  on  his  journey  to  the 
North.  The  swirl  of  drapery  to  the  right  of  St.  John  can  only  be  de¬ 
rived  from  Burgundy.  His  second  tympanum  of  Zamora  (Ill.  741), 
representing  the  Virgin  enthroned  under  a  canopy  between  angels, 
is  obviously  copied  from  the  southern  tympanum  of  Chartres.  The 
Child,  however,  is  not  placed  in  the  frontal  position,  but  on  the  left 
knee  as  at  Beaucaire  (Ill.  1299). 

I  suspect  that  the  same  sculptor  may  be  responsible  for  the  figures 
under  the  vaulting  ribs  of  the  Catedral  Vieja  of  Salamanca  (Ill.  736- 
739)-  The  draperies,  it  is  true,  are  different ;  but  the  face  of  the  figure 
trampling  a  dragon  at  Salamanca  (Ill.  736)  is  the  face  of  the  Virgin 
at  Zamora  (Ill.  741),  and  the  face  of  the  crouching  figure  at  Sala¬ 
manca  (Ill.  739)  is  the  face  of  the  St.  Paul  of  Zamora  (Ill.  740). 
Moreover,  the  draperies  for  all  their  apparent  dissimilarities  have 
many  points  of  contact.  If  the  identification  of  these  hands  be  ad¬ 
mitted,  we  may  infer  that  our  master  also  brought  from  the  West  of 
France,  possibly  from  Cormery,  the  idea  of  placing  sculptures  below 
the  vaulting  ribs. 


312  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

It  is  known  that  the  cathedral  of  Zamora  was  built  by  the  bishop 
Esteban  (i  1 50-1 168)  and  was  consecrated  in  1174.^  Since  our  sculp¬ 
tor  shows  knowledge  of  no  monuments  in  the  North  later  than  the 
southern  tympanum  of  Chartres  which  was  probably  finished  by 
1150,  he  might  have  worked  at  Zamora  at  any  time  between  1150 
and  1174.  That  his  activity  is  to  be  assigned  to  the  earlier  rather 
than  to  the  later  part  of  this  period  is  indicated  by  the  fact  that  the 
sculptures  are  placed  upon  the  facade  of  the  south  transept,  which 
would  presumably  have  been  one  of  the  parts  of  the  building  erected 
rather  early,  and  also  by  the  finely  archaic  vigour  and  delicacy  of  his 
style.  The  sculptures  of  the  Catedral  Vieja  of  Salamanca  must  surely 
date  from  about  1150.  Sehor  Lamperez  discards  the  consecration 
date  of  1160,  but  thinks  that  the  cathedral  was  begun  before  1130, 
and  that  the  choir  and  transepts  were  finished  by  1150.2 

Another  derivative  of  the  first  Angouleme  atelier  somewhat  nearer 
home  is  the  portal  of  the  refectory  of  St.-Aubin  of  Angers  (Ill.  965- 
972).  We  have  here  the  work  of  an  excellent  sculptor  who  imitated, 
about  1 130,  the  manner  of  the  earlier  work  at  Angouleme,  but  shows 
no  traces  of  having  been  influenced  by  the  poorer  sculptures  of  the 
upper  stories. 

The  relationship  of  the  Angouleme  lunettes  to  the  frescos  of 
Catalonia  is  a  puzzling  one.  The  analogies  in  the  working  of  the 
draperies  are  obvious,  and  closer  than  can  be  accounted  for  by 
common  derivation  from  Othonian  miniatures.  Catalan  fresco 
painters  were  evidently  in  close  touch  with  work  in  France ;  one  of 
them  indeed  executed  the  frescos  at  Vicq,^  which,  too,  are  related 
to  the  Angouleme  lunettes.  The  question  of  the  date  of  the  Catalan 
frescos  is  still  unsolved.  The  churches  of  Sant  Climent  de  Tahull 
and  Santa  Maria  de  Tahull  were  consecrated  in  1123 ;  I  can  see  no 
reason  to  doubt  that  their  frescos  are  of  this  time.  On  the  other 

*1150.  X.  sed.  Stefanus.  Eccl.  Cathedr,  aedif.  et  dedicatur  15  IX.  1174.  fl.  1168  (Gams). 

2  527  f. 

comparison  between  the  frescos  at  Vicq  and  those  of  Catalonia  was  first  suggested  to 
me  by  Mr.  Cook;  Mr.  Melville  Webber  has  pointed  out  that  the  Vicq  frescos  are  especially 
close  to  Santa  Maria  de  Bohi.  There  are  illustrations  of  all  these  frescos  in  Les  Pintures 
Murals  Catalanes  published  by  the  Institut  d’Estudis  Catalans.  . 


ANGOULEME 


313 


hand,  the  frescos  from  Mur,  now  in  the  Boston  Museum,  are  later, 
perhaps  c.  1150;  they  are  related  to  St.-Gilles  and  Chartres  (as  Mr. 
Cook  has  recognized),  as  well  as  to  Angouleme. 

When  we  pass  from  the  sculptures  of  the  lunettes  at  Angouleme 
(Ill.  936-940)  to  the  reliefs  of  the  upper  stories  (Ill.  929-935),  we  are 
at  once  conscious  of  a  change  of  style.  All  of  the  sculptures  included 
under  the  great  arcades  and  in  the  arches  flanking  the  central  win¬ 
dow  seem  to  form  an  homogeneous  group,  which  is  distinguishable 
from  the  lunettes.  Yet  the  two  are  only  very  slightly  separated. 
Whether  this  difference  is  to  be  explained  by  supposing  that  the 
upper  sculptures  are  later,  or  the  work  of  a  different  master,  it  is  diffi¬ 
cult  to  determine  in  the  present  restored  condition  of  the  edifice. 
The  photographs  made  before  the  restoration  are  unfortunately  not 
sufficiently  clear  to  be  of  much  assistance.  As  nearly  as  it  is  possible 
to  judge,  the  differences  of  manner  are  sufficient  to  justify  the  in¬ 
ference  that  the  upper  sculptures  are  both  later  and  by  another 
hand. 

There  can  in  any  case  be  no  doubt  that  the  top-most  sculptures 
(Ill.  929-930)  are  by  a  different  master,  although  still  closely  re¬ 
lated.  The  figures  are  often  elongated;  the  draperies  are  finer  and 
more  clinging;  the  execution  more  skilful.  The  subject  of  this  re¬ 
markable  composition  is  not,  I  think,  the  Last  Judgment.  The 
angel  blowing  a  trumpet  indicates  that  as  little  here  as  does  the 
similar  figure  in  the  Puerta  de  las  Platerias  at  Santiago  from  which 
it  is  perhaps  copied. The  subject  is  the  apocalyptical  vision,  pre¬ 
cisely  as  in  the  sculptures  in  the  gable  of  the  cathedral  at  Modena. 

^  It  is  true  that  the  Pilgrims’  Guide  speaks  of  the  angels  at  Santiago  (Ill.  675-677)  as  cornua 
singula  tenentes,  Judicii  diem  pronuntiantes.  But  the  composition  obviously  does  not  and  never 
did  represent  the  Last  Judgment.  Angels  blowing  trumpets  without  connection  with  the  Last 
Judgment  abound  in  mediaeval  iconography;  to  cite  the  first  examples  that  come  to  mind, 
they  are  found  in  a  miniature  of  the  Utrecht  Psalter,  fol.  36  b;  in  a  miniature  of  the  Benedic- 
tional  of  St.  Aethelwold  at  Chatsworth,  a  work  of  the  school  of  Winchester  of  c.  980,  illus¬ 
trated  by  Wilson  and  Warner,  fol.  20;  in  the  Exultet  roll  of  Bari;  in  the  capital  representing 
the  Journey  to  Emmaus  from  Moutier-St.-Jean  (Ill.  65)  now  in  the  Fogg  Museum;  in  the  tym¬ 
panum  of  Neuilly-en-Donjon  (Ill.  93) ;  on  the  fagade  of  St.-Jouin-de-Marne  (Ill.  946) ;  in  a 
fresco  of  S.  Pietro  di  Civate,  illustrated  by  Toesca,  no;  in  one  of  the  sculptures  under  the 
vaulting  ribs  of  the  Catedral  Vieja  of  Salamanca  (Ill.  737).  The  motive  is  probably  reminiscent 
of  a  Last  Judgment,  which  is  all  that  the  text  in  the  Guide  means  to  imply. 


314  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

We  have,  indeed,  here  another  proof  of  the  relationship  between 
Angouleme  and  the  Emelian  cathedral. 

The  master  of  the  upper  sculptures  remains  under  the  influence  of 
miniatures  ■ —  at  least  I  take  it  that  the  busts  in  medallions  are  de¬ 
rived  from  manuscripts  rather  than  from  other  sources,  although  it 
is  impossible  to  be  certain  in  the  case  of  a  motive  so  widely  diffused.^ 
It  is,  however,  reasonable  to  suppose  that  German  miniatures  of  the 
X  century  continued  to  be  the  source  of  inspiration  for  the  sculptors 
of  the  West. 

Especially  notable  are  the  angels  sculptured  at  Angouleme  on  the 
voussure  of  the  central  arch  over  the  Christ  (Ill.  929).  The  motive, 
characteristic  of  the  school  of  the  West,  is  here  found  in  its  fully 
developed  form. 

Turning  now  to  the  sculptures  of  St.-Amand-de-Boixe  (Ill.  941- 
945),  we  perceive  that  the  work  is  indeed  strikingly  analogous  to 
Angouleme  (Ill.  929-940).  There  are  the  same  lunettes  with  three 
figures,  with  the  same  friezes  and  ornamental  patterns.  But  is  cur¬ 
rent  archaeology  correct  in  calling  them  the  work  of  the  same  mas¬ 
ters  ?  Notwithstanding  the  bad  preservation  of  the  reliefs  of  St.- 

^  Heads  in  medallions  are  found:  in  an  ivory  box  of  the  IV  century  in  the  museum  at  Brescia, 
illustrated  by  Graeven,  II,  1 1-15 ;  in  frescos  of  the  late  IV  or  early  V  century  at  S.  Paolo  f.  1.  m. 
at  Rome  (mostly  destroyed) ;  in  the  Christ  of  the  triumphal  arch  of  the  same  church  of  about 
the  middle  of  the  V  century;  in  the  Christ  of  uncertain  date  incorporated  in  the  apse  mosaic 
of  S.  Giovanni  in  Laterano  at  Rome;  in  the  mosaic  of  S.  Pier  Crisologo  of  Ravenna,  of  the  VI 
century ;  in  the  mosaics  of  the  early  VIII  century  at  S.  Demetrius  of  Salonica ;  in  the  V  century 
mosaic  of  the  basilica  of  Fausta  at  S.  Ambrogio  of  Milan;  in  the  mosaics  of  S.  Vitale  at  Ra¬ 
venna  of  the  VI  century ;  in  innumerable  coins ;  in  mosaic  in  the  fagade  of  the  chapel  of  S.  Zeno 
at  S.  Prassede  at  Rome  (817-824) ;  in  a  fresco  at  Bawic  in  Egypt,  illustrated  by  Griineisen,  PI. 
XLII;  in  a  Byzantine  ivory  triptych  of  the  X  ( .?)  century  at  the  Vatican;  in  a  Byzantine 
enamel  box  of  the  same  collection;  in  innumerable  other  enamels;  in  two  Byzantine  ivory 
caskets  of  the  X  century  in  the  Metropolitan  Museum  of  New  York;  in  an  ivory  triptych  of  the 
Bibliotheque  Nationale  at  Paris,  illustrated  by  Schlumberger,  Ep.  Byz.,  I,  17;  in  an  ivory 
diptych  of  the  X  century  {ibid.,  53) ;  in  a  triptych  of  the  X  century  of  the  Louvre  {ibid.,  64) ; 
in  a  mosaic  of  the  XI  century  at  St.  Luke  of  Phokis  {ibid.,  165,  341) ;  in  an  ivory  casket  of  the 
X  or  XI  century  at  Lyon  {ibid.,  281) ;  in  a  destroyed  icon  of  the  XI  century  {ibid.,  353) ;  in  a 
mosaic  of  1040  at  Kief  {ibid.,  373) ;  in  the  XII  century  mosaics  at  Cefalu,  the  Cappella  Pala- 
tina  of  Palermo,  the  Martorana  of  Palermo,  Monreale;  in  an  early  Italian  ivory  of  the  XII 
century  in  the  Barberini  library  at  Rome,  illustrated  by  Graeven,  II,  56;  in  a  plaster  relief  of 
S.  Ambrogio,  in  the  church  of  S.  Ambrogio  at  Milan;  in  stone  sculpture  in  Armenia,  in  the 
church  at  Achthamar  of  the  early  X  century,  illustrated  by  Strzygowski,  Arm.,  291  f. ;  in  the 
destroyed  portal  of  Cluny;  and  in  German  ivories  and  miniatures  of  the  X  century  —  e.g., 
those  of  the  Bibliotheque  Nationale  of  Paris,  illustrated  by  Goldschmidt,  I,  No.  38. 


ANGOULEME 


315 


Amand,  and  the  restoration  at  Angouleme,  I  have  little  hesitation 
in  replying  in  the  negative.  St.-Amand  is  the  work  of  an  inferior 
copyist.  He  has  taken  his  conception  from  Angouleme,  but  his  exe¬ 
cution  is  entirely  different.  His  lunette  figures  are  weak  and  timid 
compared  with  their  originals.  They  have  not  the  movement,  the 
vigour,  the  daring,  nor  the  decorative  quality  of  the  Angouleme 
lunettes.  The  technical  details  are  different.  The  St.-Amand  artist 
introduces  a  beaded  ornament  in  his  halos  and  on  the  robes  of  his 
ecclesiastics,  which  is  not  found  at  Angouleme.  His  draperies  are  of 
another  type.  They  seem,  indeed,  inspired  by  the  master  of  the  up¬ 
per  row  of  reliefs  at  Angouleme.  This  point  is  important.  Since  St.- 
Amand  was  consecrated  in  1125,  we  are  confirmed  in  our  dating  of 
even  the  latest  work  of  the  Angouleme  fagade  to  within  the  third 
decade  of  the  XII  century. 

St.-Jouin-de-Marne  (Ill.  946-950)  was  begun  in  1095;  in  1130^ 
the  church  was  consecrated.  The  western  bays  of  the  nave  seem  to 
be  the  latest  part  of  the  construction  ;  we  may  assume  that  the  facade 
dates  from  the  years  immediately  preceding  1130.  The  style  of  the 
sculptures  seems,  in  fact,  a  little  more  advanced  than  that  of  the 
latest  work  at  Angouleme.^  The  draperies  are  more  clinging,  less 
schematized,  more  naturalistic.  The  heads  of  the  St.  Peter  (Ill.  950) 
and  of  the  St.  John  (Ill.  949)  are  finer  than  any  of  the  heads  at  Angou¬ 
leme  (Ill.  929-940).  In  the  upper  figure  to  the  left  of  the  window 
(Ill.  947)  and  the  Delilah  (Ill.  948)  appear  those  trailing  sleeves  ® 
which  were  to  become  characteristic  of  the  school  of  the  West  in  the 
fourth  decade  of  the  century.  These  are  barely  foreshadowed  in  the 
angel  of  St.  Matthew  (Ill.  929)  at  Angouleme.  The  heads  of  the  two 
apostles  (Ill.  949,  950)  below  the  Annunciation  have  already  a  Char- 
train  quality. 

1  Altare  princeps  Ecclesiae  S.  lohis  Euang.  anno  1130  denuo  consecratu  fuit  ab  Epo  cujus 
nomen  reticetur,  in  honorem  sanctorum  Jouini,  Martini  atque  Sebastiani  {Chartularium 
Monasterii  S.  Jovini  de  Marnis,  Paris,  Bibliotheque  Nationale,  Fond  Latin,  No.  5449,  fol.  5). 

^  Yet  according  to  the  Cong.  Arch..,  I903j  LXX,  71,  these  are  “des  bas-reliefs  plus  anciens” 
“appliques  dans  le  plein  des  murs. ” 

*  They  are  also  characteristic  of  Far  Eastern  art  from  a  very  early  period.  Compare,  e.g., 
the  gilt  bronze  image  owned  by  the  Imperial  Household,  and  anterior  to  781,  exhibited  in  the 
Kyoto  Exposition.  It  is  illustrated  in  the  catalogue. 


3i6  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

St.-Jouin-de-Marne  (Ill.  946-950)  was  a  pilgrimage  church.  Al¬ 
though  apparently  not  directly  on  the  road,  the  rich  relics  it  con¬ 
tained  must  have  induced  many  to  detour  on  their  way  to  Santiago 
or  Rome.  On  the  upper  gable  is  sculptured  a  procession  of  pilgrims 
—  the  same  subject  that  was  later  repeated  in  the  pilgrimage  church 
of  Borgo  S.  Donnino  in  Lombardy.  The  facade  of  St.-Jouin-de- 
Marne  shows  the  characteristics  of  pilgrimage  art  in  the  many  for¬ 
eign  influences  it  reflects.  The  strongest  of  these  is  that  of  Lom¬ 
bardy.  The  division  into  three  parts  by  shafts;  the  ending  of  these 
shafts  inconsequentially;  the  setting-in  of  random  bits  of  sculpture 
in  high  relief ;  the  arched  corbel-tables ;  the  grotesques  of  the  capitals ; 
the  cross  in  the  gable ;  many  of  the  anthemia  and  rinceaux,  are  evi¬ 
dently  inspired  by  models  in  Italy,  and  more  especially  in  the  neigh¬ 
bourhood  of  Pavia.  The  sculpture,  on  the  other  hand,  shows  rather 
French  and  Spanish  influences.  The  Annunciation  (Ill.  948)  recalls 
the  master  of  the  Creation  of  Adam  at  Santiago  (Ill.  686) ;  the 
two  statues  below  (Ill.  949,  950)  seem  to  be  reminiscent  of  the 
Puerta  de  las  Platerias  (Ill.  674-691),  of  Cluny  (Ill.  5-10)  and 
of  Charlieu  (Ill.  4) ;  the  Luxury  possibly  recalls  Moissac  (Ill.  371)- 

It  is  worthy  of  remark  that  the  school  of  the  West  is  by  no  means 
so  exclusively  under  the  influence  of  Toulouse  as  has  generally  been 
assumed.  That  wind,  however,  did  unquestionably  blow.  The  pecul¬ 
iar  stomach  folds  in  the  draperies,  so  characteristic  of  later  work  in 
the  West,  are  found  in  the  cloister  of  Moissac  (Ill.  273).  This  partic¬ 
ular  resemblance,  however,  may  possibly  be  due  to  derivation  from 
a  common  original.  Precisely  such  stomach  folds  are  found  in  a  man¬ 
uscript  life  of  Ste.  Radegonde,  illuminated  about  1050  and  now 
preserved  in  the  Bibliotheque  Municipale  of  Poitiers  ^  and  also  in 
Spanish  ivories  (Ill.  664). 

In  addition  to  St.-Michel-d’Entraigues,  which  is  a  dated  and  ad¬ 
mitted  monument  of  1137  (Ill.  1006),  there  remain  two  more  works 
of  sculpture  in  the  West,  the  date  of  which  may  be  considered  to  be 
accurately  determined  by  documentary  sources. 

^  MS.  250  fol.  40,  illustrated  in  the  Bulletin  de  la  S.  F.  R.  M.  P.,  1914. 


ANGOULEME 


317 


The  little  church  at  Chadennac  (Ill.  1034-1040)  offers  the  lover  of 
Xll-century  art  an  unexpected  delight.  These  sculptures,  lost  in  the 
country  and  mentioned  only  cursorily  in  out-of-the-way  books  deal¬ 
ing  with  the  antiquities  of  the  region,  are  a  masterpiece  of  the  first 
rank.  Their  quality  is  even  finer  than  that  of  Chartres.  They  lack, 
it  is  true,  the  repose  and  monumental  grandeur  of  the  work  at  Par- 
thenay;  their  merits  are  rather  delicacy  and  finesse.  This  sculptor 
was  the  Pisanello  of  Romanesque  art.  Like  the  Italian  he  delights  in 
the  world  —  the  pomp  of  extravagant  costume,  the  beauty  of  lithe 
and  graceful  limbs.  Like  Pisanello,  too,  he  takes  particular  joy  in  ani¬ 
mals.  Indeed,  I  suspect  that  the  slender  hounds,  so  characteristic  of 
the  Veronese  artist’s  work,  and  which  came  to  him  from  French  min¬ 
iatures,  may  be  the  lineal  descendants  of  the  no  less  lovely  ones 
sculptured  on  the  portal  of  Chadennac.^ 

The  date  of  this  important  monument- —  1140  —  is  happily  de¬ 
termined  by  an  inscription,^  which  if  not  of  great  antiquity,  doubt¬ 
less  still  preserves  an  authentic  tradition.  Several  heads  are  abso¬ 
lutely  Chartrain  in  style,  as,  for  example,  the  restored  male  portrait 
in  the  cornice  over  the  central  portal.  One  of  the  heads  in  the  vous- 
sures  (Ill.  1035)  is  very  close  to  those  of  Gilbert  at  Toulouse  (Ill. 
434-436). 

The  portal  of  Blazimont  (Ill.  1041-1044)  is  another  work  by  the 
sculptor  of  Chadennac.  The  arch  of  the  door-way  at  Blazimont  is 
pointed ;  the  attenuation  of  certain  figures  is  more  extreme ;  the  style 
a  little  more  mannered ;  but  on  the  whole  the  two  works  are  very 
much  alike.  The  draperies,  the  animals,  the  drawing,  numerous 
technical  peculiarities  are  the  same.  The  angel  on  the  column  at 
Chadennac  (Ill.  1039)  is  the  sister  of  the  angels  in  the  inner  vous- 
sures  at  Blazimont  (Ill.  1043).  Like  Chadennac,  Blazimont  is  a  pure 
and  beautiful  example  of  the  quasi-Burgundian  art  of  the  West. 
There  are,  it  is  true,  details  of  this  portal  at  which  criticism  must 
cavil ;  but  in  its  entirety  it  is  a  master-work.  Here,  indeed,  is  the  per- 

^  The  Chadennac  hounds  are,  perhaps  in  turn,  derived  from  those  of  the  Utrecht  Psalter, 
f.  23,  24  b,  33. 

^  Dangibeaud,  26. 


31 8  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

fection  of  manner.  Charm  of  line  and  grace  of  contour  unite  with 
delicacy  of  execution. 

The  derivation  of  this  art  from  the  tympanum  of  Autun  —  1132  — 
(Ill.  80,  81)  is  obvious.  So  is  its  relationship  with  St.-Michel  —  1 137 
—  (Ill.  1006)  in  which  we  perceive  the  same  tendencies.  If  Blazi- 
mont  is  purer,  more  Burgundian,  that  is  doubtless  because  its  sculp¬ 
tor  came  in  more  direct  touch  with  the  fountain-head.  Blazimont 
was  probably  executed  about  1145. 

A  confirmation  of  this  dating  may  be  derived  from  an  English 
manuscript  of  1 1 19-1 146.^  The  angels  here  have  the  same  elongated 
and  crossed  legs  as  in  our  sculptures.  The  two  works  must  be  nearly 
contemporary ;  but  one  has  the  impression  that  in  this  case  the  min¬ 
iature  is  not  the  original  but  the  copy.  If  this  feeling  be  correct,  we 
must  place  Blazimont  before  1146.2 

The  angel  on  the  outer  voussure  of  the  portal  at  Varaize  (Ill,  1002) 
comes  exceedingly  close  to  the  style  of  the  Chadennac  Master,  but 
the  inner  voussures  are  of  an  entirely  different  manner. 

The  sculptures  at  Moreaux  (Ill.  1065-1068)  are  even  less  known 
than  those  of  Chadennac.  Indeed,  when  I  visited  the  ruins  of  this 
chapel  in  1921,  the  reliefs  had  entirely  disappeared  underneath  a 
luxuriant  growth  of  ivy.  Since  some  of  the  vines  were  several  inches 
thick,  it  was  evident  that  the  sculptures  had  not  been  seen  by  human 
eyes  since  Longuemar  copied  the  inscriptions  more  than  half  a  cen¬ 
tury  ago. 

These  inscriptions,  which  may  still  be  read,  imply  that  the  chapel 
was  erected  by  Grimoard  and  Guillaume  Adelelme,  bishops  of 
Poitiers,  and  Arnaud,  arch-deacon.®  Now  Guillaume  Adelelme  was 

^  Reproduced  by  HaselofF  in  Michel,  II,  i,  p.  312. 

^  This  type  of  angel  became  typical  of  English  manuscripts  of  a  late  period  —  see  the  calen¬ 
dar  of  c.  1200  illustrated  in  the  Burlington  Catalogue,  PI.  34;  the  Psalter  of  St.  Mary’s  of 
Winchester,  c.  1220-1240  {ibid.,  PI.  37);  the  Psalter  of  St.  Swithun’s  Priory,  Winchester, 
British  Museum,  Cotton  MS.,  Nero,  C.  IV,  f.  39 ;  the  late  XII  century  Life  of  St.  Guthlac  of 
Croyland,  Brit.  Mus.  Harley  Roll  Y.  6,  ed.  British  Museum  Reproductions  from  Illuminated 
Manuscripts,  Series  I,  viii. 

^  Inscription  of  central  portal ; 

VT  FVIT  INTROITVS  TEMPLI  SCI  SALOMONIS : 
t  SIC  EST  ISTIVS  IN  MEDIO  BOVIS  ATQ:  LEONIS : 


ANGOULEME 


319 


elected  bishop  of  Poitiers  in  1 1 28  ;  he  died  in  1 140,  and  was  succeeded 
by  Grimoard,  who  died  two  years  later,  in  1142.  Since  both  bishops 
are  mentioned  in  the  inscriptions,  the  chapel  must  have  been  begun 
before  1140,  and  finished  after,  but  before  1142.  It  is,  therefore,  a 
very  precisely  dated  monument  of  1140. 

Two  other  monuments  should  perhaps  be  considered  of  deter¬ 
mined  date,  although  the  documentary  evidence  in  regard  to  them  is 
circumstantial  rather  than  explicit.  The  church  of  St. -Vivien  was 
given  by  the  bishop  of  Bazas  to  the  priory  of  La  Reole  in  1144;  ^ 
since  the  style  of  the  existing  sculptures  (Ill.  1085,  1086)  is  precisely 
that  of  this  date,  we  are  justified  in  concluding  that  the  donation 
occasioned  a  reconstruction  of  the  church.  Similar  considerations 
lead  me  to  place  both  friezes  of  Selles-sur-Cher  (Ill.  1074-1082)  in 
1145.2 

In  fact  one  of  the  flanking  statues  stands  on  a  lion,  the  other  on  a  bull.  Left  of  the  portal : 
DS  MISEREATVR  GRIMOARDI 
PICTAVENSIS  EPI  ET  ARNAVDl 
ARCHIDIACONI  PAT  NR. 

Right  of  the  portal : 

DS  MISEREATVR  GVILMI  ADALELMI  PICTAVENSIS  EPI  ET  ARNAVDl  ARCHI¬ 
DIACONI  PAT  NR. 

^Archives  de  la  Gironde,  V,  151. 

2  See  what  has  been  said  above,  p.  24  f. 


VIII 

LATER  MONUMENTS  OF  THE  WEST 


We  have  now  passed  in  review,  at  least  so  far  as  known  to  me,  the 
monuments  of  sculpture  in  the  school  of  the  West,  the  date  of  which 
can  be  determined  by  documentary  evidence.  The  list  is  meagre,  es¬ 
pecially  in  view  of  the  large  number  of  undocumented  monuments 
extant ;  yet  by  rare  good  fortune  the  dates  are  distributed  over  the 
first  forty  years  of  the  XII  century  with  sufficient  frequency  to  de¬ 
termine  the  development  of  sculpture  in  this  critical  period.  After  the 
formation  of  the  Gothic  style  at  St.-Denis  (Ill.  1437-1457)  in  1140, 
the  course  of  art  runs  smooth.  The  documents,  therefore,  help  us  out 
precisely  at  the  point  where  we  have  most  need  of  them. 

Several  undated  monuments  are  still  of  importance  for  compre¬ 
hending  the  evolution  of  sculpture  in  the  West. 

Among  these,  one  of  the  best  known  is  certainly  Notre-Dame-la- 
Grande  of  Poitiers  (Ill.  951-962).  Because  of  its  analogy  with 
Angouleme  (Ill.  929-940),  which  as  we  have  seen  has  been  much 
post-dated,  archaeologists  have  generally  considered  this  facade  as 
of  c.  1180.  That  would  make  it  about  contemporary  with  Senlis 
(Ill.  1505-1513)  and  the  Portico  de  la  Gloria  at  Santiago  (Ill.  820- 
840).  It  is  only  necessary  to  compare  Notre-Dame-la-Grande  (Ill. 
951-962)  with  these  two  monuments  to  be  convinced  of  the  extrava¬ 
gance  of  the  theory. 

The  facade  of  Notre-Dame-la-Grande  (Ill.  951-962)  is  certainly 
more  unified  than  that  of  Angouleme  (Ill.  929-940) ;  it  is,  however, 
possible  to  trace  in  the  sculptures  the  work  of  three  different  hands. 
To  the  first  belong  all  the  reliefs  to  the  left  of  the  central  portal  (Ill. 
956-959),  also  the  Joseph  (Ill.  962)  and  the  wrestlers  (Ill.  962)  to  the 
right.  By  the  second  are  the  Visitation  (Ill.  960)  and  the  Nativity 
(Ill.  961) ;  and  by  the  third  the  apostles  (Ill.  95^-955)  above.  It  is 


LATER  MONUMENTS  OF  THE  WEST 


321 


evident  that  the  first  two  masters  worked  contemporaneously ;  if  the 
third  came  after  them,  it  must  have  been  by  a  comparatively  short 
interval  of  time,  since  his  style  hardly  seems  essentially  more 
advanced. 

Comparison  with  Angouleme  (Ill.  929-940)  gives  the  impression 
that  the  fagade  of  Notre-Dame  (Ill.  951-962)  was  begun  later.  At 
Poitiers  the  design  is  more  coherent ;  the  pointed  arches  introduced 
in  the  side  lunettes  have  no  counterpart  at  Angouleme.  The  lunette 
sculptures  of  Angouleme  (Ill.  936-940)  are  obviously  more  primitive 
than  any  of  the  work  at  Notre-Dame-la-Grande.  But  if  the  Pictave 
fagade  was  begun  later,  it  may  well  have  been  finished  about  the  same 
time.  In  fact  the  sculptures  seem  contemporary  with  the  later  work 
at  Angouleme  (1128)  and  St.-Amand-de-Boixe  (Ill.  941-945)  — 1125. 
The  rudimentary  Jesse  Tree  (Ill.  959)  must  have  been  executed 
before  this  motive  received  its  definitive  form  at  St. -Denis.  We 
may,  therefore,  assign  Notre-Dame-la-Grande  to  c.  1130.  The 
trailing  sleeves  of  the  figure  to  the  right  of  the  Visitation  need  not 
disquiet  us  in  this  dating.  We  have  seen  that  such  sleeves  are  also 
found  at  St.-Jouin-de-Marne  (Ill.  946-950)  which  was  completed  in 
1130. 

The  iconography  of  these  sculptures  is  interesting.  Beginning  in 
the  spandrel  above  the  northern  great  arch  to  the  left  we  have  repre¬ 
sented  the  Temptation.  The  inscription  is  now  in  part  illegible,  but 
can  be  reconstituted  with  the  help  of  the  copy  of  Lecointre,  pub¬ 
lished  by  Longuemar :  ^ 

ADA :  EVA  CRIMEN  FERT  HOMINI  PRIMORDIA 
LUCTUS 

Then  follows  the  figure  of  Nebuchadnezzar;  the  inscription 
NABVCODNOSOR  REX  is  still  well  preserved. 

We  have  next  four  prophets,  the  two  at  the  ends  holding  scrolls, 
the  two  in  the  centre,  books.  The  first  is  Daniel ;  on  his  scroll  can 
still  be  read:  CV  VENERIT  SCS  SCORVM  CES{sabit  unctio 
vestrd).  The  second  holds  a  book;  he  is  Moses  and  he  once  was 


213, 


322  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

supplied  with  the  inscription :  PROPHETAM  DABIT  VOBIS  DE 
FRATRIBUS  VESTRIS  ET  NON  ESTIMA.  The  third  was 
Jeremiah  ;  he  once  was  supplied  with  the  inscription  :  POST  HAEC 
IN  TERRIS  VISUS  EST  ET  CUM  HOMINIBUS  CONVER- 
SATUS  EST.  The  fourth  was  Isaiah ;  on  his  scroll  was  inscribed : 
EGREDIETUR  VIRGA  DE  RADICE  JESSE,  ET  FLOS  DE 
RADICE  EJUS  ASCENDET. 

The  next  scene  is  the  Annunciation  ;  then  Jesse,  with  a  tree  grow¬ 
ing  from  his  head,  on  the  top  of  which  perches  the  dove  of  the  Holy 
Spirit ;  last  the  Nativity. 

It  is  generally  admitted  that  this  peculiar  order  of  scenes  was  in¬ 
spired  by  a  miracle  play.  That  may  be,  although  I  do  not  know  any 
text  with  which  the  sculptures  correspond. 

It  has  been  held  in  particular  that  the  four  prophets  holding  scrolls 
or  books  with  inscriptions  are  derived  from  a  miracle  play,  and  that 
the  proof  of  this  is  to  be  found  in  the  quotations  selected  for  the 
scrolls. 

Now  it  is  true  that  these  quotations  are  peculiar.  That  of  Daniel 
does  not  correspond  precisely  with  any  text  in  the  scriptures,  but  is 
taken  from  a  pseudo-Augustine  sermon.  This  sermon,^  which  en¬ 
joyed  universal  popularity  in  the  Middle  Ages,  to  the  point  that  it 
was  incorporated  as  a  regular  part  of  the  liturgy,  was  written  in  the 
form  of  a  dialogue.  The  theme  is  the  confutation  of  the  Jews  from 
the  mouths  of  their  own  prophets.  Character  after  character  is  in¬ 
terrogated,  and  answers.  First  Isaiah  comes  forward.  Die,  says  the 
writer,  Ysaia,  testimonium  Christo.  Isaiah  replies  with  the  text: 
Ecce  inquit  virgo  in  utero  concipiet  et  pariet  filium  et  vocabitur  nomen 
ejus  Hemanuhel.’^  Then  comes  Jeremiah.  Die  et  tu,  Jheremia,  testi¬ 
monium  Christo.  Hie  est,  inquit,  Deus  noster  et  non  estimabitur  alius 
absque  illo  qui  invenit  omnem  viam  seientie  et  dedit  earn  Jaeob  puero 
suo  et  Israel  dileeto  suo.  Post  hee  in  terris  visus  est  et  eum  hominibus 
eonversatus  est.^  Next  is  Daniel :  Die,  sanete  Danihel,  die  de  Christo 


*  Published  by  Migne,  Pat.  Lat.,  XLII,  1123. 

^  Isai.,  vii,  14.  ®  Bar.,  iiij  36,  37. 


LATER  MONUMENTS  OF  THE  WEST 


323 


quod  nosti.  Cum  venerit^  inquity  Sanctus  Sanctorumy  cessabit  unctio 
{vestrd)}  Die  et  Moyses  .  .  .  testimonium  Christo.  Prophetamy  in- 
quity  vobis  suscitabit  Deus  de  fratribus  vestris;  omnis  anima  que  non 
audivit  prophetam  illumy  exterminabitur  de  populo  suo.‘^  Accedat 
autem  David  sanctus.  Adorabunt  inquit  eum  omnes  reges  terrey  omnes 
gentes  servient  illi.^  Die  et  tu  Abacuch  propheta  testimonium  de 
Christo.  Dominey  inquity  audivi  auditum  tuum  et  timui ;  consideravi 
opera  tua  et  expavi.^  Then  comes  Simeon :  Nunc  dimittisy  DominCy 
servum  tuum  in  pacCy  quia  viderunt  oculi  mei  salutare  tuum.^  Zacha- 
rias  and  Elizabeth  testify:  Tu  puer  propheta  Altissimi  vocaberiSy 
preibis  ante  Jaciem  Domini  parare  viam  ejus.^  Then  is  mentioned  the 
scene  of  the  Visitation;  Elizabeth  adds:  Unde  mihi  hoc  ut  veniat 
mater  Domini  John  the  Baptist  is  also  introduced.  Then  comes 
Virgil:  Jam  nova  progenies  celo  dimittitur  alto.^  The  next  witness  is 
Nebuchadnezzar :  DiCy  Nabuchodonosory  quid  in  fornace  vidisti 
quando  tres  viros  justos  injuste  illuc  miseraSy  diCy  die  quid  tibi  Juerit 
revelatum.  — Nomine  inquit  tres  viros  misimus  in  fornace  ligatos. — -  Et 
aiunt  eiy  V ere  rex. —  Ecce  inquit  video  quattuor  viros  solutos  deambu- 
lantes  in  medio  ignis  et  corruptio  nulla  est  in  eis  et  aspectus  quarti  simi- 
lis  Filio  Dei.^  Last  comes  the  Sibyl  with  the  verses  made  celebrated 
by  St.  Augustine : 

Judicii  signum  tellus  sudore  madescet ; 

E  celo  rex  adveniet  per  secla  futuruSy  etc. 

This  sermon,  already  half  dramatic,  incorporated  in  the  ritual  of 
the  Church,  seems  to  have  developed  into  a  miracle  play.  The  vari¬ 
ous  parts  were  presumably  first  read  by  different  members  of  the 
clergy ;  then  costumes  came  to  be  assumed,  and  finally  the  sermon 
was  re-written  in  dramatic  form,  the  dialogue  being  put  into  rhyme. 

Now  whether  the  iconography  of  Notre-Dame-la-Grande  is  in¬ 
spired  by  a  lost  prose  version  of  the  drama  of  the  prophets,  or  di- 

1  Cf.  Dan.,  ix,  24.  ^  Deut.,  xviii,  1 5 

^Ps.,  Ixxi,  II.  ^Hab.,  iii,  i ;  cf.  Eccle.,  vii.  14. 

®  Luc.,  ii,  29.  ®  Luc.,  i.  76. 

^  Luc.,  i,  43.  ®  Ecloga,  IV,  7. 

®  Dan.,  iii,  92. 


324  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

rectly  by  the  sermon  is  a  very  open  question.  There  is  no  proof  that 
the  play  entered  into  the  composition.  That  it  did  has  simply  been 
assumed  by  writers  anxious  to  make  their  point.  The  question  is 
perhaps  at  bottom  an  academic  one.  The  sermon  slipped  into  the 
drama  by  imperceptible  degrees.  The  conceptions  of  the  sermon  were 
so  striking  that  they  impressed  themselves  indelibly  upon  the  XII 
century,  and  found  expression  in  different  forms. 

That  the  iconography  of  Notre-Dame-la-Grande  goes  back 
directly  or  indirectly  to  the  sermon  is  certain.  In  no  other  way  can 
be  explained  the  juxtaposition  of  Nebuchadnezzar  and  the  prophets. 
The  sermon  also  explains  the  association  of  the  scene  of  the  Visita¬ 
tion  with  these  other  subjects.  Moreover,  the  scrolls  of  the  prophets 
are  quotations  not  from  the  scriptures,  as  we  have  observed,  but 
from  the  sermon.  Only  Isaiah  is  given  a  verse  which  is  taken  from 
his  prophecy,  and  not  quoted  in  the  sermon.  The  prophets  selected 
at  Notre-Dame  are  among  those  that  appear  in  the  sermon  — 
Moses,  Daniel,  Jeremiah,  Isaiah. 

It  has  been  claimed  that  the  motive  of  prophets  holding  scrolls  was 
first  introduced  at  St.-Denis ;  this  is  said  to  have  been  a  translation 
into  stone  of  the  drama  of  the  prophets,  and  from  there  the  motive 
spread  over  Europe. 

In  point  of  fact  the  motive  of  prophets  holding  scrolls  goes  back  to 
the  earliest  times  of  Christian  art.  We  find  them,  for  example,  in  the 
Codice  Sinopense,  an  Asia  Minor  manuscript  of  the  VI  century.^ 
Here  scenes  from  the  Testaments  are  flanked  on  both  sides  by  a 
prophet  holding  a  scroll  on  which  is  inscribed  a  sentence  from  his 
prophecy.  In  the  Codice  Purpureo  of  Rossano,  a  contemporary 
monument,  scenes  from  the  New  Testament  have  placed  below  them 
four  prophets  with  similar  scrolls.  Prophets  similarly  flanking  scenes 
from  the  Gospels  are  also  found  in  the  Greek  St.  Matthew  of  the  VI- 
VII  centuries.^  In  the  Occident  we  find  the  motive  in  the  Utrecht 
Psalter.®  In  the  XI  century  the  motive  appears  in  the  destroyed 

*  Bib.  Nat.  Supp.  gr.  1286. 

^  Illustrated  by  Omont,  PI.  XVI,  XVII,  XVIII,  XIX. 

®  Folio  6  b. 


LATER  MONUMENTS  OF  THE  WEST 


325 

mosaics  of  Capua/  in  the  frescos  of  S.  Angelo  in  Formis,  and  in  the 
mosaics  ^  of  Daphni.^ 

The  texts  selected  for  the  scrolls  of  the  prophets  do  not  seem  to 
have  been  rigidly  fixed.  There  appears  to  have  been  considerable 
variety  and  freedom  of  choice  at  all  times.  From  the  beginning  of  the 
XII  century  we  begin  to  feel  the  influence  of  the  pseudo-Augustine 
sermon  in  the  texts  selected,  and  in  the  prophets  represented.  Thus 
at  Cremona,  in  Lombardy,  in  the  jambs  sculptured  by  Guglielmo 
(1107-1117)  we  have  represented  the  four  prophets  Daniel,  Jeremiah, 
Isaiah  and  Ezekiel.  All  except  Ezekiel  are  among  those  mentioned 
in  the  sermon ;  and  the  scrolls  of  the  first  three  are  quotations  not 
from  the  scriptures,  but  from  the  sermon.^  In  Nicolb’s  work  at  Fer¬ 
rara  (1135)  are  the  same  four  prophets,  with  the  same  inscriptions, 
obviously  taken  over  from  Cremona.^  But  at  the  cathedral  of  Verona 
in  1139  Nicolb  has  given  a  different  selection  of  prophets.  David, 
Jeremiah,  Isaiah,  Daniel  and  Habakkuk  are  the  same  as  appear  in 
the  sermon ;  with  the  exception  of  David  their  scrolls  are  either  quo¬ 
tations  from  the  sermon,  or  the  texts  cited  in  it;  but  to  these  have 
been  added  Malachi,  Haggai,  Zechariah,  Micah  and  Joel,  who  do  not 
appear  in  the  sermon.®  In  a  cupola  of  S.  Marco  at  Venice,  which  is 
one  of  the  earliest  mosaics  of  the  church,  and  probably  executed  not 


^Bertaux,  Ital.  Mer.,  I,  187. 

^  Scrolls  were  given  not  only  to  prophets.  The  seated  consul  holds  a  scroll  with  inscription 
in  the  Probianus-Diptychon  of  the  Berlin  Staatsbibliothek  (illustrated  by  Pelka,  58).  A  per¬ 
sonage,  identified  as  St.  Mark  by  Mr.  Maclagen,  carries  a  scroll  in  an  ivory-carving  from  the 
throne  of  Grado  now  in  the  Museo  Archeologico  of  Milan,  a  Coptic  work  of  the  VI  century,  but 
this  piece  is  perhaps  a  later  restoration  (illustrated  by  Maclagen,  PI.  Ill,  xii) ;  scrolls  are  car¬ 
ried  by  St.  Mark  and  St.  John  in  a  miniature  of  the  Gudohinus  Gospel  at  Autun  (No.  3),  which 
is  earlier  than  750.  St.  Matthew  carries  a  scroll  in  a  miniature  of  the  Codex  Aureus  of  Stock- 
holm,  fol.  9  b ;  the  motive  is  also  found  in  a  South  Anglo-Saxon  Gospel  of  the  IX  century,  illus¬ 
trated  by  Zimmermann,  314  (Rome,  Vat.  Barb.  Lat.  570) ;  and  in  the  Landisfarne  Gospels  of 
the  British  Museum  (Cotton  MS.  Nero  D.  IV,  fol.  209  b,  illustrated  by  Zimmermann,  226). 
Christ  is  represented  carrying  a  scroll  with  inscription  in  a  Byzantine  ivory  of  the  X  century 
in  the  museum  of  Berlin,  illustrated  by  Schlumberger,  II,  460.  A  book-cover  of  the  Cluny 
Museum,  at  Paris,  by  the  Echternach  master,  a  work  of  the  end  of  the  X  century,  represents 
St.  Paul  carrying  a  scroll  with  the  inscription  :  Gratia  dei  sum  id  quod  sum.  It  is  the  same  in¬ 
scription  which  is  repeated  on  the  scroll  of  the  St.  Paul  of  the  fagade  of  St.-Gilles  (Ill.  131 1). 

®  Millet,  83. 

*  See  my  Lombard  Architecture,  II,  386-387. 

®  Ibid.,  II,  419,  420.  ®  Lombard  Architecture,  III,  476. 


326  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

long  after  the  mosaic  decoration  was  commenced  in  1070,  are  repre¬ 
sented  a  series  of  prophets  with  scrolls.  Solomon,  Malachi,  Zecha- 
riah,  Haggai,  Sophonias,  Jonah,  Abdias  are  not  included  in  the  cycle 
of  the  sermon ;  David  is,  but  his  scroll  is  not  the  text  cited  in  the  ser¬ 
mon  ;  however,  Habakkuk,  Daniel,  Jeremiah,  and  Isaiah  have 
scrolls  which  are  either  quotations  from  the  sermon,  or  repetitions 
of  the  texts  there  cited. ^  In  the  east  window  of  the  cathedral  of 
Piacenza  is  sculptured  the  Annunciation  and  the  two  prophets 
Balaam  and  Isaiah.  Isaiah  bears  a  scroll  with  the  text  cited  in  the 
sermon ;  Balaam  does  not  appear  in  the  sermon,  but  was  introduced 
into  the  mysteries  at  an  early  date  —  first  apparently  in  the  Mystery 
of  Adam,  which  is  in  certain  ways  more  primitive  than  that  of  Rouen. 
It  is  therefore  not  impossible  that  we  have  here  some  influence  of  the 
drama.  In  the  apse  arch  of  S.  Clemente  at  Rome,  in  a  mosaic  of 
1108,  is  represented  Jeremiah  with  a  scroll  on  which  is  inscribed  the 
text  quoted  by  the  sermon.  Isaiah  with  the  text  quoted  by  the  ser¬ 
mon  is  represented  at  Moissac  (Ill.  361).  The  same  prophet  is  found 
atConques  (Ill.  391)  and  Notre-Dame-du-Port  of  Clermont-Ferrand 
(Ill.  1162)  balancing  St.  John  the  Baptist.  The  coupling  of  these  two 
characters  must  certainly  be  ascribed  to  the  influence  of  the  sermon. 
At  Ancona  Jeremiah  has  the  text  cited  by  the  sermon,  and  Habakkuk 
a  quotation  from  the  sermon.  In  the  pulpit  of  S.  Leonardo  at  Arcetri 
(Ill.  226)  Moses  has  the  text  cited  by  the  sermon,  and  Daniel  a  quo¬ 
tation  from  the  sermon. ^  At  Orense  Daniel  has  a  scroll  with  a 
quotation  from  the  sermon  (Ill.  855).  At  S.  Pellegrino  at  Bomiaco  in 
the  Abruzzi  are  frescos  of  1263  ;  Daniel  holds  a  scroll  with  a  quotation 
from  the  sermon.®  Three  scenes  from  Duccio’s  Siena  reredos  are 
flanked  by  prophets  holding  scrolls.  The  Isaiah  of  the  Berlin  Nativ¬ 
ity  still  has  the  same  text  cited  by  the  sermon.  At  S.  Marco  of  Venice, 
a  mosaic  by  Pasterini  dating  from  1634  still  shows  Jeremiah  carrying 
a  scroll  with  the  text  cited  in  the  sermon. 

We  may  conclude  that  the  motive  of  prophets  holding  scrolls  with 


*  Saccardo  in  Ongania,  305. 
®  Bertaux,  Ital.  Mer.,  291. 


^Durand,  26. 


LATER  MONUMENTS  OF  THE  WEST 


327 


a  quotation  from  their  prophecies  is  an  exceedingly  old  one,  which 
may  be  traced  back  as  far  as  the  VI  century.  These  scrolls  at  first 
contained  texts  from  their  prophecies ;  but  about  the  end  of  the  XI 
century  preference  came  often  to  be  given  to  the  texts  cited  in  the 
pseudo-Augustine  sermon,  and  even  quotations  from  the  sermon 
came  to  be  substituted  for  the  scriptures. 

It  is  not  true  that  the  scrolls  of  Guglielmo’s  prophets  at  Cremona 
are  copied  from  those  of  Notre-Dame-la-Grande.  We  have  only  to 
compare  the  scrolls  of  the  two  Jeremiahs  to  perceive  that  the  two  are 
derived  from  a  common  original,  the  sermon,  and  that  neither  is 
copied  from  the  other.  The  scroll  at  Poitiers  was  :  Post  haec  in  terris 
visus  est  et  cum  hominibus  conversatus  est  .  .  .  ;  that  at  Cremona  is : 
hie  est  inquit  deus  noster  et  non  estimabitur  alius  absque  illo  qui  invenit 
omnem  viam  scientie  et  dedit  earn  Jacob  puero  suo  et  Israel  dilecto  suo. 
We  should,  indeed,  hardly  suspect  that  the  two  were  related,  did  we 
not  possess  the  key  in  the  common  source. 

Although  the  scrolls  are  derived  independently  from  a  common 
original,  there  is  still  no  doubt  that  the  first  hand  which  we  have  dis¬ 
tinguished  in  the  sculptures  of  Notre-Dame-la-Grande  shows  points 
of  stylistic  contact  with  the  work  of  Guglielmo.  One  of  Guglielmo’s 
marked  peculiarities  is  the  habit  of  representing  his  figures  in  full 
face,  but  showing  the  feet  in  profile.  Now  the  sculptures  at  Notre- 
Dame-la-Grande  of  Poitiers  show  this  same  mannerism,  for  example, 
in  the  handmaiden  to  the  right  of  the  Visitation  (Ill.  960).  The 
Joseph  of  Notre-Dame  is  remarkably  similar  to  the  Elijah  of 
Guglielmo  at  Modena.^  The  Poitiers  Temptation  (Ill.  957)  is  not 
without  resemblances  to  Guglielmo’s  rendering  of  the  same  theme  at 
Modena  and  Cremona.  Moreover,  the  arched  corbel-tables  of  the 
fagade  of  Notre-Dame-la-Grande  and  much  of  the  decoration  are 
strongly  reminiscent  of  Lombardic  models.  Our  artist  seems  to 
have  known  Souillac  also ;  his  wrestlers  (Ill.  962)  are  a  weak  echo  of 
those  on  the  sculptured  column  (Ill.  350),  and  recall  the  similar 

^  This  figure  should  be  compared  with  a  Byzantine  ivory  casket  of  the  IX  century,  in  the 
Museo  Kirchiano  at  Rome,  illustrated  by  Graeven,  II,  58. 


328  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

motive  sculptured  on  the  portal  of  the  cathedral  of  Trani  in  Apulia 
(Ill.  206). 

The  Visitation  (Ill.  960)  of  the  second  sculptor  is  close  to  the 
Temptation  of  Christ  in  the  Puerta  de  las  Platerias  (Ill.  678).  The 
embroidered  borders  of  the  draperies  are  indicated  by  perforations  — 
the  earliest  completely  developed  example  I  know  of  a  feature  later 
so  popular,  and  which  is  only  foreshadowed  at  St.-Jouin-de-Marne 

{Ill.  949). 

The  composition  of  the  Majestas  Domini  in  the  upper  gable  (Ill. 
951)  looks  as  if  it  might  have  been  inspired  by  a  seal.^ 

The  portal  at  La  Lande  de  Fronzac  (Ill.  916,  917)  seems  to  have 
been  inspired  by  an  ivory  casket  like  the  one  of  1005  preserved  in  the 
cathedral  of  Pamplona.^  The  eyes  are  executed  according  to  the  same 
convention  ;  ^  the  draperies  are  similarly  rendered,  there  are  the  same 
stiff  skirts,  the  same  stocky  figures,  the  same  relief  in  two  planes,  the 
same  angularity  of  drawing.  Most  striking  of  all,  the  decorative  in¬ 
terlace  of  the  guilloche  of  the  box  is  reproduced  on  the  inner  archi- 
volt  of  the  portal. 

The  style  is  crude  and  barbarous,  but  perhaps  not  as  primitive  as 
it  appears.  The  sleeves  of  the  principal  figure  already  tend  to  trail,  a 
characteristic  which  we  have  seen  appear  at  Angouleme  only  in  the 
2o’s.^  However,  our  doorway  can  hardly  be  as  late  as  that. 

A  striking  feature  of  La  Lande  de  Fronzac  is  the  proto-voussure 
sculptures,^  forming  an  evident  link  between  the  Burgundian  type, 
such  as  we  have  it  in  the  portal  of  Cluny  or  at  Calvenzano  and  the 
developed  motive  as  we  have  seen  it  at  Angouleme  (Ill.  929)  in  1128. 
La  Lande  de  Fronzac  evidently  falls  at  an  early  stage  of  this  evolu- 

^  1  owe  this  suggestion  to  Mr.  Berenson. 

^  This  analogy  was  called  to  my  attention  by  Mr.  Breck. 

®  See  the  Mas  photograph,  no.  C  15164. 

*  This  motive  was  especially  popular  in  France  from  1 1 20-1 150,  but  was  certainly  known  at 
an  earlier  date.  Since,  as  we  have  already  remarked  (see  above,  p.  315),  it  is  common  in  Far 
Eastern  art,  it  is  indeed  probably  of  very  ancient  origin.  It  is  found  in  the  ivory  box  of  Pam¬ 
plona  of  1005;  in  the  sculptures  of  1060  from  the  Mauritzkirche,  now  in  the  Westfalischen 
Landesmuseum  at  Munster;  and  in  the  pier  sculptures  of  the  Moissac  cloisters  of  1100  (Ill. 
269). 

^Proto-voussure  sculptures  are  also  found  at  Grossenlinden. 


LATER  MONUMENTS  OF  THE  WEST 


329 


tion.  Moreover,  the  iconography,  taken  from  the  first  chapter  of  the 
Apocalypse,  is  unusual.  We  should  hardly  find  this  particular  sub¬ 
ject  after  the  stock  Burgundian  themes  had  been  elaborated.  I  am 
therefore  inclined  to  believe  that  this  portal  dates  from  the  first 
decade  of  the  XII  century. 

We  are  confirmed  in  this  dating  by  observing  that  the  style  of  the 
sculptures  at  La  Lande  de  Fronzac  seems  analogous  to  that  of  one  of 
the  capitals  (Ill.  913)  of  St.-Hilaire-le-Grand  of  Poitiers.  The  facial 
types  are  very  similar,  and  so  are  the  short  stocky  skirts.  This  capi¬ 
tal  assuredly  belongs  to  the  works  executed  when  the  wooden  roof 
of  the  church  was  replaced  by  a  vault ;  a  document  of  1 130  mentions 
that  this  alteration  had  been  made  within  the  memory  of  those  until 
recently  living,  hence  at  the  end  of  the  XI  century.^  Contemporary 
capitals  at  St.-Hilaire  (Ill.  915)  are  of  a  different  style,  and  indeed 
recall  rather  the  monuments  of  the  Velay.  In  fact,  close  connections 
existed  between  the  collegiate  church  of  St.-Hilaire  and  Le  Puy, 
where  the  canons  had  retired  when  forced  into  exile  in  the  IX  cen¬ 
tury. 

An  unexpected  connection  of  the  master  of  the  tympanum  of  La 
Lande  de  Fronzac  (Ill.  917)  is  with  a  capital  at  Anzy-le-Duc  in  Bur¬ 
gundy  (Ill.  17).  This  capital  falls  as  completely  out  of  the  Burgun¬ 
dian  tradition,  as  it  is  obviously  closely  related  to  the  style  of  the 
tympanum  at  La  Lande  de  Fronzac.  It  must  be  the  work  of  a  sculp¬ 
tor  of  the  West  who  wandered  to  Burgundy,  and  unless  I  mistake,  of 
the  very  master  of  the  Lande  de  Fronzac  tympanum.  From  this  re¬ 
lationship  we  can  draw  another  confirmation  of  our  dating  of  the 
Lande  de  Fronzac  sculptures.  On  the  nave  of  Anzy-le-Duc  there 
worked  also  a  Burgundian  master  who  executed  a  peculiar  capital 
(Ill.  21).  Now  this  same  hand  reappears  at  St.-Parize-le-Chatel 
(Ill.  25),  a  monument  which  is  dated  1113. 

The  influence  of  Moorish  ivories  upon  Romanesque  sculpture  is 
not  an  isolated  phenomenon  which  occurs  only  at  La  Lande  de 
Fronzac.  The  same  source  of  inspiration  lies  at  the  base  of  much  of 

1  Mortet,  142. 


330  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

the  decorative  ornament  of  the  school  of  the  West  of  the  XII  cen¬ 
tury.  A  common  origin  in  Moorish  ivories  explains  analogies  be¬ 
tween  works  of  sculpture  widely  separated  geographically.  Thus  the 
two  pulpits  by  Nicodemo  in  the  Abruzzi,  one  at  Moscufo,  dated  1159 
(Ill.  180),  and  the  other,  an  extraordinarily  exact  duplicate,  at 
Cugnoli,  dated  1166,^  are  not  really  influenced  by  the  school  of  the 
West,  but  the  resemblance  to  this  work  is  due  to  the  fact  that  they 
are  copied  from  originals  similar  to  those  imitated  in  the  West.  The 
analogy  of  the  facial  types  at  La  Lande  de  Fronzac  (Ill.  917)  with 
those  of  the  “Tomba  de  Rotari”  at  Monte  S.  Angelo  (Ill.  197,  198) 
might  be  explained  in  the  same  way;  but  at  Monte  S.  Angelo  the 
draperies  have  a  distinctly  Western  character  which  gives  reason  to 
believe  that  we  have  here  direct  influence. 

The  fagade  of  Ste.-Marie-des-Dames  at  Saintes  (Ill.  974-976) 
dates  from  two  distinct  periods.  The  upper  story  is  analogous  in 
style  to  the  western  portal  of  St.-Amand-de-Boixe  (Ill.  1 135) ;  it  must 
therefore  have  been  erected  in  the  second  half  of  the  XII  century. 
The  lower  story  is  obviously  more  archaic.  It  seems  like  a  direct  de¬ 
velopment  from  La  Lande  de  Fronzac  with  the  influence  of  Moorish 
ivories  still  predominating  in  the  ornament.  However,  if  this  church 
owed  much  to  Spain,  it  also  gave  much.  We  have  here  one  of  the 
earliest  examples  of  voussure  sculptures  (Ill.  974)  as  well  as  of  rows 
of  figures  placed  parallel  to  the  radii  of  the  portal  (Ill.  975,  976).  The 
latter  motive  was  taken  over  by  the  Spanish  sculptors  at  Toro  (Ill. 
734),  in  both  churches  at  Carrion  de  los  Condes  (Ill.  773),  at  Sepul¬ 
veda  (Ill.  802),  at  Soria  (Ill.  795)  and  in  the  Pdrtico  de  la  Gloria  at 
Santiago  (Ill.  824-828).  This  interchange  of  influences  between 
Saintes  and  Spain  is  easily  explained  by  the  position  of  the  former  on 
the  road  of  St.  James. 

In  the  luxuriant  barbarity  of  its  decoration,  as  well  as  in  individual 
motives,  the  portal  of  Ste.-Marie-des-Dames  (Ill.  974“976)  resem- 


^  Illustrated  by  Poggi,  74. 

Nicodemo  worked  also  at  S,  Maria  in  Valle  Porclaneta  in  collaboration  with  Roberto.  See 
Bertaux,  Ital.  Mer.^  562. 


LATER  MONUMENTS  OF  THE  WEST 


331 


bles  S.  Michele  of  Pavia.  Its  wildness  suggests  a  date  within  the  first 
quarter  of  the  XII  century;  it  will  be  recalled  that  at  Angouleme  re¬ 
finement  and  delicacy  had  begun  to  supplant  the  earlier  more  savage 
manner  before  1128.  The  voussures  of  Angouleme  are  distinctly 
more  developed  than  those  of  Ste.-Marie.  It  is  therefore  probable 
that  the  portal  of  Ste.-Marie  dates  from  not  later  than  1125. 

The  church  of  Aulnay  (Ill.  979-986)  is  situated  some  distance  from 
the  village,  and  on  the  pilgrimage  road.  We  may,  indeed,  recognize 
in  the  architecture  and  sculpture  a  pilgrimage  character,  not  only  in 
the  extraordinary  sumptuousness  of  the  decoration,  but  in  the  in¬ 
fluences  to  and  from  Spain.  The  inspiration  of  Moorish  ivories  is  still 
patent  in  the  facial  types  of  the  transept  portal  (Ill.  979)  and  in  the 
ornament,  even  in  the  elephants  sculptured  on  one  of  the  capitals. 
Pilgrimage  character  is  also  evident  in  the  building  in  other  foreign 
influences :  the  arched  corbel-tables  and  much  of  the  ornament  is 
Lombard;  and  the  sculpture,  especially  of  the  fagade,  shows  Bur¬ 
gundian  tendencies. 

It  is  evident  that  the  portal  of  the  transept  (Ill.  979)  is  earlier  than 
the  fagade  (Ill.  983-986).  The  transept  doorway  (Ill.  979)  is  indeed 
the  nec  plus  ultra  of  the  line  of  development  we  have  been  following 
out.  More  exquisite  drollery  than  that  of  the  outer  voussures  has 
rarely  been  attained.  Grotesque  art  can  go  no  farther. 

A  comparison  of  the  transept  portal  of  Aulnay  (Ill.  979)  with  that 
of  Ste.-Marie-des-Dames  (Ill.  974-976)  shows  how  greatly  superior 
was  the  Aulnay  sculptor.  He  has  suppressed  the  numerous  small 
members,  the  confusion  of  detail  which  make  the  work  of  his  prede¬ 
cessor  restless  and  confusing.  He  has  made  his  orders  all  rectangular, 
his  voussure  sculptures  all  of  the  radiating  type.  In  short,  there  is  in 
his  work  a  sense  of  order,  of  subordination  of  the  details  to  the  whole, 
which  is  characteristic  of  the  second  rather  than  the  first  quarter  of 
the  XII  century.  In  detail  his  figures  are  better  executed  and  more 
advanced  in  character  than  those  of  Saintes.  Although  far  from 
being  as  fine  as  the  later  work  at  Angotileme,  they  may  none  the  less 
be  contemporary;  the  master  of  Aulnay  was  essentially  a  dec- 


332  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

orator  rather  than  a  figure-carver.  His  portal  may  be  assigned  to 
c.  1130. 

The  western  portal  of  Loches  (Ill.  1111-1119)  is  clearly  related  to 
the  transept  portal  of  Aulnay.  It  is,  perhaps,  the  work  of  a  sculptor 
trained  in  the  Saintonge  school  of  the  30’s  who  a  score  of  years  later 
still  repeated  a  formula  by  that  time  entirely  demode.  In  the  outer 
voussure  (Ill.  1116),  however,  he  shows  himself  conscious  of  the  new 
movements  —  the  figures  here  are  quite  Chartrain  in  character.  The 
fragments  of  sculpture  enwalled  above  the  portal  are  certainly  not  in 
the  position  for  which  they  were  carved ;  probably  as  in  Spain  they 
were  sculptured  some  time  before  the  church  was  actually  built,  and 
when  the  construction  came  to  be  carried  out  they  were  not  set  up  as 
originally  intended.  At  all  events  four  of  the  figures  (Ill.  1115,  m?) 
are  adossed  on  colonnettes,  which  must  have  been  intended  to  stand 
free.  The  position  of  the  Virgin  holding  the  Child  in  the  frontal  posi¬ 
tion  recalls  Chartres ;  but  the  subject,  —  the  Adoration  of  the  Magi, 
—  the  canopy  over  St.  Joseph  (Ill.  1 1 13)  and  the  folds  of  the  drapery 
which  covers  the  bed  of  the  Magi  (Ill.  1114)  must  be  derived  from 
Beaucaire  (Ill.  1299). 

A  more  interesting  sculptor  executed,  doubtless  somewhat  earlier, 
two  consoles  in  the  church  (Ill.  1108-1110).  The  same  hand  reap¬ 
pears  in  the  capitals  of  L’lle-Bouchard  (Ill.  1100-1107)  and  in  the 
zodiac  of  Aubeterre  (Ill.  1098,  1099).  Among  the  Romanesque  sculp¬ 
tors  of  France  known  to  me,  there  is  none  so  strongly  Guglielmo- 
esque  in  character.  This  artist  must  assuredly  have  been  formed 
in  Lombardy.  He  uses  Guglielmo’s  faces,  Guglielmo’s  draperies, 
Guglielmo’s  proportions,  Guglielmo’s  beards,  and  most  striking  of  all 
his  spirit  is  Guglielmo’s.  But  although  he  imitates  so  assiduously  the 
manner  of  the  early  years  of  the  XII  century,  our  artist  obviously 
worked  at  a  later  time.  This  is  evident  not  only  from  the  character 
of  the  architecture  at  Loches  and  at  L’lle-Bouchard,  but  also  in  cer¬ 
tain  details  of  his  style.  His  garments  have  the  ornamented  borders 
which  hardly  came  into  general  use  before  1135 ;  the  composition  of 
his  capital  with  the  Last  Supper  at  L’lle-Bouchard  (Ill.  1104)  is  like 


LATER  MONUMENTS  OF  THE  WEST 


333 


that  of  the  capital  of  the  same  subject  at  Issoire  (Ill.  1214),  with  the 
table  forming  a  skirt  cutting  the  bell  of  the  capital  into  two  parts ; 
his  Visitation  at  LTle-Bouchard  (Ill.  iioi)  recalls  the  composition 
of  Nicolb  at  Ferrara;  the  architecture  of  his  gates  of  Paradise  (Ill. 
1106)  at  L’lle-Bouchard  is  advanced  in  style.  The  activity  of  our 
master  must  be  placed  in  the  40’s  and  50’s.  A  comparison  of  his 
style,  with  that  of  the  Chadennac  master  (Ill.  1034-1040)  who 
worked  contemporaneously  in  the  same  region,  is  eloquent  proof  of 
the  freedom  and  individuality  of  Romanesque  sculptors. 

Returning  to  Aulnay,  we  notice  that  the  pointed  window  above 
the  transept  portal,  with  the  superb  psychomachia  sculptured  upon 
the  voussures  (Ill.  980),  seems  to  be  contemporary  with  the  portal, 
or  nearly  so,  but  is  of  a  very  different  style. 

A  different  and  later  art,  on  the  other  hand,  appears  in  the  western 
facade  (Ill.  983-986).  Burgundian  influence  is  evident  in  the  flat 
folds  of  the  draperies,  in  the  elongated  proportions,  in  the  sweeping 
contours.  Calligraphic  line  is  indeed  here,  as  frequently  in  the  Bur- 
gundy-izing  work  in  the  West,  carried  to  a  sugary  extreme  which 
the  wiser  artists  in  the  land  of  its  origin  were  clever  enough  to  avoid. 
In  Burgundy  I  know  of  nothing  quite  so  obviously  graceful  as  the 
Foolish  Virgins  of  Aulnay  (Ill.  985).  The  spirit  of  this  work  has  evi¬ 
dently  much  in  common  with  Chadennac  (Ill.  1034-1040)  —  1140 
—  with  which  it  must  be  about  contemporary. 

The  same  hand  which  executed  the  western  portal  at  Aulnay  (Ill. 
983-986)  reappears  at  Argenton-Chateau  (Ill.  987-996).  Fenioux 
(Ill.  997-998)  is  also  so  closely  related  that  I  am  inclined  to  think  the 
three  monuments  all  the  work  of  the  same  sculptor.  The  portal  at 
St.-Pompain  (Ill.  1058)  signed  by  Guillaume  (GIEGLELM)  is  also 
close  to  this  group,  but  I  think  Guillaume  is  an  imitator,  not  to  be 
identified  with  the  finer  sculptor  of  Aulnay  and  Argenton-Chateau. 

The  west  fagade  of  Aulnay  was  imitated  at  Pont-l’Abbe-d’Ar- 
noult  (Ill.  1003-1005).  Not  only  was  the  composition  of  the  tym¬ 
panum  of  the  side  lunette  representing  the  Crucifixion  of  St.  Peter 
(Ill.  1005)  repeated  in  a  form  that  is  singularly  reminiscent  of  Aulnay 


334  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

(Ill.  983),  but  the  arrangement  of  the  subjects,  and  the  general 
scheme  of  the  two  central  portals  is  very  much  alike  (Ill.  984  and 
Ill.  1004). 

Two  distinct  hands  may  be  distinguished  in  the  sculptures  of 
Notre-Dame-de-la-Couldre  of  Parthenay.  To  the  one  belong  the 
sculptures  still  in  place  on  the  ruins  of  the  facade  of  the  church  (Ill. 
1047-1052) ;  to  the  other  the  two  capitals  now  enwalled  in  the  gate 
of  the  neighbouring  school  (Ill.  1045,  1046)  and  the  six  reliefs  now 
divided  between  the  Louvre  (Ill.  1053-1057)  and  the  collection  of 
Mrs.  Gardner.  The  distinction  of  style  is  so  sharp  that  it  is  natural 
to  suppose  that  it  corresponds  with  a  difference  in  date ;  yet  there 
can  be  no  great  interval  of  time  between  the  two  groups. 

The  reliefs  from  the  Louvre  and  at  Mrs.  Gardner’s  can  only  be  a 
small  part  of  the  sculptures  which  once  existed  on  the  upper  part  of 
the  facade.  This  must  have  been,  indeed,  one  of  the  most  lavishly 
decorated  monuments  in  France.  And  what  is  singular  is  that  the 
simple  and  rather  commonplace  lower  part  of  the  fagade  which  still 
survives  gives  no  hint  of  the  splendour  of  the  destroyed  upper  por¬ 
tions. 

These  facts  can,  I  think,  be  best  explained  by  reference  to  the  his¬ 
torical  events  of  the  time.  It  is  in  fact  known  that  in  1135  a  church 
of  Parthenay,  which  is  traditionally  identified  as  Notre-Dame-de- 
la-Couldre,  was  the  scene  of  a  celebrated  event.  St.  Bernard  at  the 
portal  completely  and  almost  miraculously  converted  the  stubborn 
and  recalcitrant  duke  of  Aquitaine,  Guillaume  IX.  We  may  suppose 
that  the  lower  part  of  the  fagade  had  been  finished  just  before  this 
dramatic  scene;  and  that  the  upper  part  was  added  immediately 
afterwards  to  commemorate  the  occurrence,  and  possibly  at  the 
expense  of  the  duke. 

However  this  may  be,  it  is  certain  that  the  later  sculptures  must 
have  been  executed  about  1 140.  The  style  is  exceedingly  close  to  that 
of  Chadennac  (Ill.  1034-1040) ;  so  close,  in  fact,  that  I  almost  sus¬ 
pect  that  they  may  be  by  the  very  hand  of  that  artist.  If  so,  they  are 
earlier,  for  they  distinctly  fall  away  from  Blazimont  (Ill.  1041- 


LATER  MONUMENTS  OF  THE  WEST 


335 


1044).  At  any  event,  the  head  of  Mrs.  Gardner’s  elder  with  the 
goatee  beard  is  very  like  the  head  of  the  Gilbertian  prophet  at  Chad- 
ennac  (Ill.  1035) ;  the  draperies  on  the  upper  part  of  the  body  of  the 
Louvre  elder  with  the  bag-pipe  (Ill.  1057)  are  precisely  like  those  of 
the  corresponding  portions  of  the  Virtue  at  Blazimont  (Ill.  1042) ; 
the  naturalistic  sheep  of  the  Louvre  relief  (Ill.  1054)  make  us  think 
of  the  animals  of  Chadennac  (Ill.  1036-1040)  and  Blazimont  (Ill. 
1041-1044) ;  the  fluttering  draperies  of  the  Parthenay  elders  (Ill. 
1057)  recall  those  of  the  angel  on  the  column  at  Chadennac  (Ill.  1039). 

Whether  or  not  this  identification  of  hands  be  accepted,  it  is  cer¬ 
tain  that  the  later  work  is  exceedingly  close  to  Chadennac,  and  not 
much  later  than  Chadennac,  and  Chadennac  is  a  dated  monument 
of  1 1 40. 

Furthermore  the  second  atelier  at  Parthenay  is  very  closely  con¬ 
nected  with  the  later  work  on  the  Moissac  porch.  If  we  compare 
the  Abraham  of  the  Parthenay  capital  (Ill.  1046)  with  the  Simeon 
of  the  Moissac  Presentation  (Ill.  372),  we  shall  be  convinced  of  the 
very  close  relationship  between  the  two.  The  eyes,  the  shape  of 
the  head,  the  beard,  the  draperies  are  all  similar.  We  feel  that  the 
Parthenay  work  can  not  be  very  much  later.  Now  the  adjustment 
work  on  the  Moissac  porch  we  have  seen  is  probably  not  later  than 
1130.  This,  again,  would  lead  us  to  place  the  Parthenay  sculptures 
in  the  fourth  decade  of  the  XII  century. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  Parthenay  elders  show  obvious  relation¬ 
ship  with  those  of  Chartres.  The  vase  held  by  Mrs.  Gardner’s  left- 
hand  elder  ^  is  of  exactly  the  same  form  as  the  vases  held  by  the  two 
elders  in  the  lowest  voussures  at  Chartres.^  The  Parthenay  elder 
holds  the  end  of  his  long  trailing  sleeve  to  veil  his  hand,  precisely  as 
does  the  elder  to  the  right  at  Chartres.  The  similarity  in  the  folds 
of  the  two  sleeves  is  unmistakable.^  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  certain 
that  the  Parthenay  elder  is  not  copied  from  Chartres.  The  Parthe- 

^  Photographs  of  Mrs.  Gardner’s  elders  may  be  obtained  from  Thomas  E.  Marr  and  Son, 
180  Tremont  Street,  Boston,  Mass. 

^  Illustrated  by  Houvet,  50. 

*  This  comparison  was  first  suggested  to  me  by  Mr.  C.  S.  Niver. 


336  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

nay  work  shows  no  trace  of  the  Chartrain  draperies  and  other  man¬ 
nerisms  ;  the  resemblance  between  the  two  figures  is  only  general. 
The  head  master  of  Chartres  was  inspired  by  these  originals,  but  he 
did  not  slavishly  reproduce  them.  The  Parthenay  work  is  obviously 
more  archaic,  more  primitive.  Since  Chartres  was  begun  before  1145, 
and  Parthenay  is  earlier,  we  are  brought  again  to  the  date  1140  for 
Parthenay. 

The  shape  and  size  of  the  relief  of  the  Shepherds  (Ill.  1053)  shows 
that  it  must  originally  have  formed  part  of  a  frieze,  such  as  still 
exists,  although  no  longer  in  its  original  position,  in  the  not  very  dis¬ 
tant  church  of  Montmorillon  (Ill.  1072  a,  1073).  Such  friezes  were  in 
fashion  about  1 140 ;  we  have  seen  that  they  were  introduced  at  Beau- 
caire  (Ill.  1292-1298),  St.-Gilles  (Ill.  131 5-1322),  St.-Trophime  of 
Arles  (Ill.  1375,  1377),  Dax  (Ill.  327-332),  Selles-sur-Cher  (Ill. 
1078-1082),  St.-Paul-de-Varax  (Ill.  86-90),  Carrion  de  los  Condes 
(Ill.  722-726),  Moarves  (Ill.  729),  Nimes  (Ill.  1378,  1379),  Ripoll 
(Ill.  560).  Friezes  are  also  found  at  Modena  and  Cremona  in  Italy 
and  St.  Jacob  of  Regensburg  in  Germany.  Like  the  Montmorillon 
frieze  (Ill.  1072  a,  1073),  that  of  Parthenay  doubtless  represented  a 
cycle  of  scenes  dealing  with  the  story  of  the  nativity  of  Christ.  Mrs. 
Gardner’s  rider  is  shown  by  its  height  and  shape  to  have  belonged  to 
this  frieze.  The  subject  of  the  relief  has  been  called  the  Entry  into 
Jerusalem,  but  this  identification  is  doubtful.  The  Entry  into  Jeru¬ 
salem  could  hardly  have  formed  part  of  the  same  cycle  of  reliefs  with 
the  Shepherds.  It  is  much  more  likely  that  we  should  have  had  some 
scene  connected  with  the  Nativity.  Moreover,  the  figure  seated 
upon  the  female  animal  —  whether  it  is  a  horse  or  donkey  is  not  en¬ 
tirely  clear  —  is  crowned ;  Christ  is  never  represented  crowned  in  the 
Entry  into  Jerusalem.  It  is  far  more  probable  that  the  relief  is  a 
fragment  from  the  scene  of  the  Journey  of  the  Magi ;  the  broken 
object  which  the  king  carried  in  his  left  hand  was  possibly  a  gift,  al¬ 
though  this  naturalistic  sculptor  may  have  represented  there  a  tree, 
like  the  one  he  has  put  in  front  of  the  animal’s  head.  The  fatigue  of 
the  animal  after  the  long  journey  is  admirably  rendered. 


LATER  MONUMENTS  OF  THE  WEST 


337 


The  work  at  Foussais  (Ill.  1061-1063)  is  interesting,  not  only  be¬ 
cause  of  its  own  intrinsic  qualities,  but  because  the  northern  lunette 
(Ill.  1061)  is  signed  by  a  certain  .  .  .  Rx-WDYS  AVDEBERTVS 
(  =  Giraud  xA.udebert)  of  St.-Jean-d’Angely.  This  sculptor  seems  to 
have  been  called  in  to  supply  the  plastic  decoration  for  the  two 
lunettes,  representing  the  Feast  in  the  House  of  Simon,  the  Noli  me 
Tangere  and  the  Deposition.  The  central  portal  with  radiating  vous- 
sures  (Ill.  1062)  is  by  a  coarser  hand.  The  analogies  of  Giraud  Aude- 
bert’s  work  (Ill.  1061-1063)  with  Chartres  are  striking.  The  aedicule 
separating  the  two  reliefs  in  the  south  lunette  is  precisely  similar  to 
the  aedicules  over  the  capitals  and  above  the  statues  at  Chartres. 
The  folds  of  the  table-cloth  and  of  the  draperies  below  it  are  like  those 
of  the  figures  in  the  central  tympanum  at  Chartres,  although  some¬ 
what  coarser.  The  horizontal  banding  on  the  dresses,  on  the  other 
hand,  seems  derived  from  the  tympanum  of  Autun  (Ill.  80,  81). 
Something  in  the  disjointedness  of  the  anatomy,  the  wattling  of  the 
sleeves  and  certain  draperies  seems  to  foreshadow  the  later  work  at 
La  Daurade  of  Toulouse  (Ill.  474-479).  The  “ribbed”  draperies  are 
like  those  of  St.-Antonin  (Ill.  359). 

A  much  more  unexpected  analogy  is  with  the  capitals  from  St.- 
Pons  (Ill.  1265,  1266)  now  in  the  Fogg  Museum.  Not  only  is  the 
composition  of  the  two  representations  of  the  Feast  in  the  House  of 
Simon  strangely  similar,  but  the  figure  to  the  left  in  the  Foussais  re¬ 
lief  (Ill.  1061)  has  the  same  hair  convention  as  the  three  figures  in  the 
St.-Pons  Journey  to  Emmaus ;  the  head  has  the  same  top-heavy  pro¬ 
portions.  The  draperies  of  the  body  of  the  figure  to  the  extreme  right 
in  the  St.-Pons  Journey  to  Emmaus  are  formed  by  parallel  bands, 
separated  by  raised  rolls  bounded  by  sharply  incised  lines.  The  same 
peculiar  convention  occurs  at  Foussais,  in  the  figure  to  the  extreme 
right  of  the  Feast  at  the  House  of  Simon.  It  is,  indeed,  characteristic 
both  of  Foussais,  and  of  one  of  the  sculptors  of  St.-Pons.  The  skirts 
of  the  figure  to  the  extreme  right  in  the  St.-Pons  Journey  to  Emmaus 
are  exactly  the  same  as  those  of  the  Moon  in  the  Foussais  Crucifixion 
(Ill.  1061). 


338  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

The  explanation  of  these  similarities  may  give  rise  to  difference  of 
opinion.  We  have  seen  that  similar  marked  analogies,  combined  with 
strong  differences,  occur  not  infrequently  between  widely  separated 
monuments  of  Romanesque  sculpture.  It  is  my  hypothesis  that 
Romanesque  sculptors  underwent  swift  changes  of  style  as  they  fell 
under  successive  influences,  or  w'orked  with  different  colleagues ; 
and  that  the  analogies  are  due  to  identity  of  hand.  I  should  not  dare 
to  say  that  the  points  of  resemblance  between  Foussais  and  St.-Pons 
are  numerous  enough,  or  striking  enough,  to  prove  that  the  Fogg 
capital  is  by  Giraud  Audebert.  I  confess,  however,  to  a  suspicion 
that  such  may  have  been  the  case.  What  is  certain  is  that  the  St.- 
Pons  capital  representing  the  Feast  in  the  House  of  Simon  (Ill.  1266) 
belongs  neither  to  the  school  of  Arles,  as  Prof.  Voge  would  have  it, 
nor  to  that  of  Toulouse,  as  IM.  Andre  Michel  claimed,  but  to  that  of 
the  West.  In  view  of  the  geographical  position  of  St.-Pons  the  fact 
is  strange. 

We  have  already  remarked  that  the  St.-Pons  capitals  are  not  all 
by  the.  same  sculptor.  In  the  capital  of  the  Journey  to  Emmaus 
(Ill.  1265)  we  have  unmixed  the  hand  which  I  am  tempted  to  identify 
with  that  of  Giraud  Audebert.  The  capital  representing  the  Feast  in 
the  House  of  Simon  is  suaver  in  style,  although  the  scene  in  the 
kitchen  (Ill.  1266)  still  retains  many  technical  tricks  of  the  first 
sculptor,  and  the  composition  of  the  feast  repeats,  as  we  have  re¬ 
marked,  that  of  Foussais.  I  think  we  have  here  probably  the  Giraud- 
Audebert-esque  artist  working  in  collaboration  with  another  sculp¬ 
tor,  who  worked  alone  in  the  capital  now  in  the  Boston  Museum 
(Ill.  1267).  This  second  hand  has  a  strangely  Gothic  character —  his 
facial  types  and  draperies  recall  the  south  portal  of  Chartres.  Pos¬ 
sibly  he  finished,  long  after,  a  capital  which  had  been  blocked  out 
by  the  Giraud- Audebert-esque  sculptor.  The  manner  of  this  second 
master  shows  that  he  also  came  from  the  West.  His  style,  in  fact,  is 
close  to  that  of  the  master  who  executed  the  apostles  from  St.-Benoit 
now  in  the  Poitiers  museum.  If,  for  example,  we  compare  the  folds 
between  the  legs  of  Christ  in  the  Fogg  Museum  capital  representing 


LATER  MONUMENTS  OF  THE  WEST 


339 


Christ  in  the  house  of  Mary  and  Martha  with  those  between  the 
legs  of  the  apostle  to  the  right  in  the  Poitiers  fragment  shown  in  Ill. 
ii33>  we  notice  a  certain  similarity.  The  folds  across  the  chest  of 
the  seated  male  figure  in  the  capital  of  the  Boston  Museum  are 
made  with  the  same  modification  of  the  Giraud  Audebert  mannerism 
which  we  find  in  the  apostle  in  the  middle  of  the  same  fragment 
at  Poitiers  (Ill.  1133).  The  spirit  of  the  draperies  is  similar  in  the 
two  works.  The  Giraud-Audebert-esque  sculptor  had  already  in¬ 
troduced  draperies  of  similar  broad  character  in  the  Christ  of  his 
Crucifixion  at  Foussais  (Ill.  1061). 

A  third  hand  may  be  distinguished  in  the  Fogg  capital  represent¬ 
ing  the  Majestas  Domini  and  twelve  apostles  (Ill.  1270),  and  in  the 
two  capitals  now  in  the  University  of  Montpellier  (Ill.  1268,  1269). 
This  master  makes  use  of  draperies  of  the  Giraud  Audebert  type ; 
his  faces  are  executed  with  extraordinary  delicacy;  he  seems  to  fall 
between  the  two  hands  we  have  already  distinguished. 

How  to  account  for  the  co-operation  of  these  widely  different 
hands  upon  the  same  capitals  I  hardly  know.  The  old  theory,  to 
which  I  myself  have  subscribed,  that  the  St.-Pons  capitals  are  the 
work  of  an  atelier  the  activity  of  which  continued  during  a  con¬ 
siderable  period,  with  a  gradual  development  of  style,  leaves  the 
close  inter-relationship  of  the  sculptors  unaccounted  for.  On  the 
other  hand  I  now  find  it  hard  to  believe  that  men  so  divergent  in 
style  should  have  worked  at  the  same  time.  In  any  event  prob¬ 
ably  none  of  the  work  of  this  second  atelier  is  earlier  than  the  sack 
of  the  monastery  in  1170.^ 

If  Giraud  Audebert  worked  at  St.-Pons  in  1170,  it  is  not  abso¬ 
lutely  impossible  that  he  might  have  executed  his  Foussais  sculp¬ 
tures  before  Chartres  was  begun  in  1145.  It  is  difficult  to  suppose 
that  he  could  have  known  the  sculpture  of  Chartres,  and  picked  up 
from  it  only  insignificant  details. 

The  portal  at  Cognac  (Ill.  1096)  has  certain  heads  which  recall 
vividly  the  style  of  Giraud  Audebert.  In  other  particulars,  however, 

^  Sahuc,  13. 


340  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

the  manner  is  notably  different  from  his.  The  poppy  eyes  of  some 
figures  recall  the  sculptor  of  Selles-sur-Cher  (Ill.  1074-1081). 

While  it  is  evident  that  the  head  master  of  Chartres  was  chiefly 
formed  at  St.-Denis,  it  is  also  clear  that  he  owes  much  to  the  West. 
Numerous  anticipations  of  his  style  in  this  region  have  already  been 
remarked.  His  voussure  sculptures  surely  come  from  the  West  di¬ 
rectly,  and  probably  from  the  Chadennac  (Ill.  1034-1040)  master, 
rather  than  via  St.-Denis  (Ill.  1437-1457).  His  elders,  we  have  seen, 
his  facial  types,  his  gravity,  are  inspired  by  Parthenay  (Ill.  1045- 
1057).  From  Montmorillon  (Ill.  1072  a,  1073), one  of  the  finest  monu¬ 
ments  in  the  West,  came,  not  only  as  we  have  already  seen  ^  the  com¬ 
position  of  the  lintels  of  the  southern  portal  at  Chartres,  but  much 
of  the  head  master’s  drapery.  Moreover,  the  mixture  of  Burgundian 
and  Spanish-Aquitanian  mannerisms,  so  noticeable  in  the  style  of 
the  head  master,  is  a  characteristic  of  this  school.  Only  here  could 
the  sculptors  of  Chartres  have  found  that  blending  of  grace  and 
dignity,  of  delicacy  and  strength,  which  they  carried  to  such  per¬ 
fection. 

A  confirmation  of  the  debt  of  the  sculptor  of  Chartres  to  the  West 
is  afforded  by  the  arched  corbel-tables  which  he  introduces  so  unex¬ 
pectedly  in  the  right-hand  tymipanum.  The  arched  corbel-table  is 
notoriously  a  Lombard  motive,  and  nothing  could  be  more  surprising 
than  to  find  it  here.  Are  we  to  suppose  that  the  master  of  Chartres 
had  studied  Guglielmo’s  frieze  at  Modena?  It  is  not  probable.  In 
fact,  we  have  seen  that  the  school  of  the  West  fell  strongly  under 
Lombard  influence,  and  among  the  motives  taken  over  was  precisely 
the  arched  corbel-table.  Now  the  arched  corbel-tables  of  Chartres 
are  not  of  purely  Lombardic,  but  of  Western,  type  (compare  the 
portal  of  Montbron). 

It  seems  to  be  a  curious  fact  that  the  influence  of  Chartres,  which 
spread  so  rapidly  over  the  Ile-de-France,  and  reached  remote  regions 
of  Spain,  never  deeply  affected  the  art  of  the  West.  I  do  not  know 
in  that  region  a  single  instance  of  jamb  sculptures,  nor  (except  Cham- 

^  See  above,  p.  125  f. 


LATER  MONUMENTS  OF  THE  WEST 


341 


pniers)  of  a  tympanum  with  the  i\pocalyptic  vision  ^  anterior  to  the 
introduction  of  the  Gothic  style  in  the  west  fagade  of  the  cathedral 
of  Angers  (Ill.  1501-1503). 

When  the  influence  of  Chartres  does  appear  in  the  West  the  style 
was  already  in  full  decadence. ^  This  is  the  case  at  Civray  where 

*  The  tympanum  at  Civray  is  modern. 

The  portal  of  Rochester  in  England  shows  interesting  relationship  with  the  school  of  the 
West.  The  jamb  sculptures  seem  to  have  been  set  in  at  a  later  date;  the  tympanum  repro¬ 
duces  the  composition  of  Cluny,  but  the  style  comes  closer  to  Angouleme  or  Notre-Dame-la- 
Grande  of  Poitiers.  Owing  to  the  erroneous  dating  of  the  latter  to  c.  ii8o  the  tympanum  at 
Rochester  has  been  assigned  to  1178  (Prior  and  Gardner,  198) ;  but  it  would  be  astonishing  if 
it  is  really  so  late. 

^  No  region  of  Europe  is  as  rich  in  monuments  of  Romanesque  sculpture  as  the  west  of 
France.  The  limits  of  the  reader’s  already  I  fear  sorely  over-tried  patience  forbid  that  I  should 
here  undertake  a  separate  study  of  each  one.  Besides,  the  illustrations  in  the  atlas  will  give 
a  far  better  idea  of  their  beauty  and  interest  than  I  could  hope  to  convey  by  description. 
1  shall  therefore  content  myself  with  a  chronological  table  of  those  of  which  1  have  not  already 
spoken. 

The  terminus  ante  quern  for  this  group  of  monuments  is  the  year  1 166,  when  the  cathedral  of 
Poitiers  was  begun,  and  introduced  the  Plantagenet  Gothic  style  into  the  region.  The  dating 
of  the  sculpture  can  be  confirmed  by  a  study  of  the  architecture.  This,  unfortunately,  has  never 
been  systematically  undertaken,  yet  I  note  with  satisfaction  that  the  few  dates  assigned  by 
the  Congres  Archeologique  {passim)  on  the  basis  of  the  architecture,  correspond  in  general 
with  those  at  which  I  have  arrived  solely  through  the  study  of  the  sculpture. 

Here  then  are  the  dates  which  seem  to  me  probable ; 
c.  1115.  St.-Symphorien,  portal  (Ill.  919);  upper  sculptures,  c.  1135  (Ill.  1007). 
c.  1120.  St.-Maixent.  Relief  of  a  saint  with  crozier  under  an  arch,  now  in  Musee  des  Anti- 
quaires  de  I’Ouest,  Poitiers. 
c.  1120.  Parthenay-le-Vieux  (Ill.  924,  925). 
c.  1120.  Ste.-Croix  of  Bordeaux  (Ill.  920-921). 

c.  1125.  Chateauneuf-sur-Charente,  portal  (111.  973) — compare  Fontaine  d’Ozillac.  Ill. 

978  — ;  upper  sculptures,  c.  1135  (Ill.  1008-1010). 
c.  1130.  Fontaines  d’Ozillac  (Ill.  977,  978). 
c.  1130.  Maillezais  (Ill.  963). 
c.  1130.  Castelvieil  (Ill.  926-928). 
c.  1135.  Perignac  (Ill.  1018-1024). 
c.  1135.  Echillais. 

c.  1135.  Melle,  St.-Hilaire  (Ill.  loii). 

c.  1135.  Corme  Royal  (Ill.  1012-1017). 

c.  1140.  Matha  (Ill.  1031-1033). 

c.  1140.  Montmorillon,  Octagone  (Ilk  1030). 

c.  1140.  Ruffec  (Ill.  1025-1029). 

c.  1140.  Melle,  St.-Pierre  (Ill.  1090,  1091). 

c.  1140.  Thouars,  St.-Medard,  sculptures  restored  (Ill.  1059,  1060). 
c.  1140.  Trois  Palis  (Ill.  1064). 

c.  1145.  St.-Aubin  of  Angers,  cloister  (Ill.  1069,  1070). 
c.  1150.  Surgeres  (Ill.  1092,  1093). 

c.  1150.  Poitiers,  St.-Hilaire-de-la-Celle,  tombeau  de  St.  Hilaire  (Ill.  1134). 
c.  1150.  La  Villedieu  (Ill.  1120,  1121). 
c.  1150.  St.-Saturnin  (Ill.  1071,  1072). 


342  ROMANESQUE  SCULPTURE 

adossed  statues  flanking  the  shafts  of  the  facade  (Ill.  1122,  1123, 
1125)  are  introduced.  This  is  a  development  of  the  motive  in  the 
nave  of  Airvault  (Ill.  898-900)  which  had  opened  the  cycle  of  sculp¬ 
ture  in  the  West ;  it  had  once  before  been  tried  on  a  facade  at  Chalais 
(Ill.  1087). 

c.  1160.  Gensac-la-Pallue  (Ill.  1094,  I095)- 
c.  1165.  Civray  (Ill.  1122-1131). 
c.  1170.  Vouvant  (Ill.  1136). 
c.  1175.  Crouzilles  (Ill.  1137). 


LIST  OF  BOOKS  REFERRED  TO 


Abbate,  Enrico.  Guida  dell'  Abruzzo.  Roma,  Club  Alpino  Italiano,  Sezione  di 
Roma,  1903.  2  vols.  120. 

Album  des  monuments  et  del' art  ancien  du  midi  de  la  France.  Toulouse,  1897.  410. 

Allmer,  a.  et  Terrebasse,  Alfred  de.  Inscriptions  antiques  et  du  moyen  age  de 
Vienne  en  Dauphine.  Vienne,  Girard,  1875.  7  vols.  8vo. 

Anonymous.  Description  de  la  basilique  Saint-Remi  d  Reims  d  V usage  des  visiteurs. 
Reims,  Monce,  s.  d. 

Latin  Psalter  in  the  University  Library  of  Utrecht.  London,  Spencer,  Sawyer,  Bird 
and  Co.,  s.  d.,  Folio. 

Aubenas,  J.-A.  Histoire  de  Frejus.  Frejus,  Leydet,  1881.  8vo. 

Aubert,  Marcel.  L'eglise  abbatiale  de  Selles-sur-Cher.  (Bulletin  Monumental,  1913, 
LXXVII,  387.) 

Aznar,  F.  y  R.  Espana,  detalles  arquitectonicos  de  sus  principales  monumentos. 
Madrid,  Fuencarral,  1902.  4to. 

Baillet,  Dom  Louis.  Les  Miniatures  du  “'Scivias"  de  sainte  Hildegarde.  (Fonda- 
tion  Piot,  1911,  XIX,  49.) 

Baluze,  Etienne  (Stephanus  Baluzius).  Miscellaneorum  libri  septem.  Parisiis, 
Muguet,  1700.  3  vols.  120. 

Barret,  P.  Le  tympan  de  I'ancienne  eglise  romane  d'Issy.  (Bulletin  Monumental, 
1902,  LXVI,  296.) 

Bauer,  Adolf  und  Strzygowsk.1,  Josef.  Fine  Alexandrinische  Weltchronik.  (Denk- 
schriften  des  kaiserlichen  Akademie  der  Wissenschaften.  Philosophisch-His- 
torische  Klasse,  L,  1904,  II,  i.) 

Baum,  Julius.  Romanische  Baukunst  in  Frankreich.  Stuttgart,  Hoffmann,  1910. 
4to.  English  edition  under  title:  Romanesque  architecture  in  France.  London, 
Heinemann,  1912.  4to. 

Bayet,  Charles.  Recherches  pour  servir  d  V histoire  de  la  peinture  et  de  la  sculpture 
chretiennes  en  Orient  avant  la  querelle  des  Iconoclastes.  Paris,  Thorin,  1879.  8vo. 

B^dier,  Joseph.  Les  legendes  epiques.  Paris,  Champion,  1913.  4  vols.  8vo. 

Bedin,  P.  Saint  Bertrand,  ev^ue  de  Comminges.  Toulouse,  Privat,  1912.  120. 

BkGULE,  Lucien.  L'eglise  Saint-Maurice,  ancienne  cathedrals  de  Vienne.  Paris, 
Laurens,  1914.  4to. 

Berchem,  Max  van;  Strzygowski,  Josef.  Amida.  Heidelberg,  Carl  Winter, 
1910.  4to. 

Bernouilli,  Rudolf.  Die  romanische  Portalarchitektur  in  der  Provence.  Strassburg, 
Heitz,  1906.  4to. 

Bertaux,  Emile.  Exposicion  retrospectiva  de  arte.  Zaragoza,  La  Editorial,  1908. 
4to. 

L' art  dans  I'ltalie  meridionals.  Paris,  Eon temoing,  1904.  4to. 

U email  de  Saint-Nicolas  de  Bari.  (Fondation  Piot,  1899, 

Bertoni,  Giulio.  Atlante  storico-artistico  del  duomo  di  Modena.  Modena,  Orlandini, 
^912.  8vo. 


BOOKS  REFERRED  TO 


344 

Bilson,  John.  Les  origines  de  1' architecture gothique.  (Revue  de  Tart  chretien,  1901, 
XLIV,  365,  463;  1902,  XLV,  213.) 

Boinet,  Amedee.  La  miniature  carolingienne.  Paris,  Picard,  1913.  Folio. 

Bond,  E.  A.  and  Thompson,  E.  M.  The  Palaeographical  Society  facsimiles  of  manu¬ 
scripts  and  insciptions.  London,  1873-1894.  4  vols.  Folio. 

Bonnay,  Louis.  Description  des  decouvertes  archeologiques  faites  a  Teglise  Saint- 
Martin  de  Brive.  (Bulletin  de  la  Societe  Scientifique,  Historique  et  Archeolo- 
gique  de  la  Correze,  1878,  I,  233.) 

Bouillart,  Dorn  Jacques.  Histoire  de  Vabbaye  royale  de  Saint  Germain  des  Prez. 
Paris,  Dupuis,  1724.  Folio. 

Bouillet,  A.  Ueglise  et  le  tresor  de  Conques.  Rodez,  Carrere,  1914.  120. 

Bouillet,  a.  et  Servieres,  L.  Sainte  Foy  vierge  et  martyre.  Rodez,  Carrere,  1900. 
4to. 

Boyer,  Victor.  La  cite  de  Carcassonne.  Paris,  Chamerot,  1884.  120. 

Breck,  Joseph.  Spanish  ivories  in  the  Morgan  Collection.  (American  Journal  of 
Archaeology,  1920,  XXIV,  217.) 

Brehier,  Louis.  Dart  chretien.  Paris,  Renouard,  1918.  4to. 

Les  miniatures  des  homelies  du  moine  Jacques  et  le  theatre  religieux  a  Byzance. 
(Monuments  Piot,  1920,  XXIV,  loi.) 

Les  origines  de  Tart  roman.  (Revue  de  I’art  ancien  et  moderne,  1920,  XXXVIII, 
129,231,263.) 

Broche,  Lucien.  La  date  de  la  chapelle  de  V eveche  de  Laon.  Caen,  Delesques,  1903, 
8 VO.  (Extrait  du  Bulletin  monumental,  1902.) 

L'eglise  de  Presles.  Caen,  Delesques,  1905.  8vo.  (Extrait  du  Bulletin  monumental, 
1904.) 

Bruel,  Alexandre.  Receuil  des  chartes  de  Vabbaye  de  Cluny  par  August  Bernard. 
Paris,  Imprimerie  Nationale,  1876-1903.  6  vols.  4to.  (Documents  inedits  sur 
I’histoire  de  France.) 

Brutails,  Jean-Auguste.  Les  vielles  eglises  de  la  Gironde.  Bordeaux,  Feret  et  Fils, 
1912.  4to. 

Notes  sobre  V art  religios  en  el Rossello.  Barcelona,  Tip.  I’Aveng,  1901.  8vo. 
Buberl,  Paul.  Die  illuminierten  Handschriften  in  Steiermark.  i  Teil.  Leipzig, 
Hiersemann,  191 1.  Folio. 

Bullarium  sacri  ordinis  Cluniacensis.  Lugduni,  Antonii  Jullieron,  1680.  Folio. 
Burlington  Fine  Arts  Club,  London.  Exhibition  of  illuminated  manuscripts.  London, 
Burlington  Fine  Arts  Club,  1908.  Folio. 

Buschbek,  Ernst  H.  Der  Portico  de  la  Gloria.  Berlin,  Bard,  1919.  8vo. 

Camera,  Matteo.  Memorie  storico-diplomatiche  delV  antica  citta  e  ducato  di  Amalfi. 
Salerno,  Tipografico  Nazionale,  1876-1881.  2  vols.  8vo. 

Catalogue  du  Musee  de  la  Commission  des  Antiquites  du  Departement  de  la  Cbte- 
d'Or.  Dijon,  Lamarche,  1894.  Folio. 

Chalvet  de  Rochemonteix,  Ad.  de.  Les  eglises  romanes  de  la  haute  Auvergne. 
Paris,  Picard,  1902.  4to. 

Charles-Roux,  J.  Frejus.  Paris,  Blond,  1909.  120. 

Saint-Gilles.  Paris,  Lemerre,  1910.  4to. 

Chenevard,  a.  L ancien  Bourbonnais,  histoire^  monumens,  moeurs.  Par  Achille 
Allier  continue  par  A.  Michel  et  L.  Batissier  .  .  .  sous  la  direction  d’A.  Chena- 
vard.  Moulins,  Desrosiers,  1838.  3  vols.  Folio. 


BOOKS  REFERRED  TO 


345 


Cherest.  Les  documents  ecrits  ne  constatent-ils  pas  V introduction  du  style  ogival  d 
r eglise  de  Vhelay  des  la  premiere  moitie  du  XII  siecle?  (Congres  Scientifique  de 
France,  1858,  XV,  2,  191.) 

Chifflet.  Histoire  de  I'abbaye  royale  de  la  ville  de  Tournus.  Dijon,  1664.  4to. 

Chomton,  Abbe  L.  Histoire  de  I  eglise  Saint-Benigne  de  Dijon.  Dijon,  Jobard,  1900. 
Folio. 

Clemen,  Paul.  Die  romanische  Monumentalmalerei  in  den  Rheinlanden.  Diisseldorf, 
Schwann,  1916.  4to. 

Clermont-Ganneau,  Charles.  Horus  et  Saint  Georges.  (Revue  archeologique, 
1876,  XXXVI,  196,  372.) 

Codice  diplomatico  barese.  Bari,  Vecchi,  1 897-1914.  8  vols.  4to. 

Congres  Archeologique  de  France.  Paris,  Picard,  1833  seq.  82  vols.  8vo. 

Creutz,  M.  Die  Anjdnge  des  monumentalen  Stiles  in  Norddeutschland.  Koln,  Du- 
mont-Schauberg,  1910.  8vo. 

Crozes,  Hippolyte.  Travaux  de  restauration  et  d'achevement  de  la  cathedrale  de  Sainte- 
Cecile  d'Alhi.  Paris,  Victor  Didron,  1861.  Pamphlet. 

Dalton,  O.  M.  Catalogue  of  the  ivory  carvings  of  the  British  Museum.  London, 
Longmans,  1919.  4to. 

Dangibeaud,  Charles.  L'ecole  de  sculpture  romane  saintongeaise.  Paris,  Imprimerie 
Rationale,  1910.  8vo.  (Extrait  du  Bulletin  archeologique,  1910.) 

Debenga,  Alvaro.  Los  marfiles  de  San  Milldn  de  la  Cogolla.  (Arte  Espanol,  1916, 
V,  243,  296,  328.) 

Dechelette,  Joseph.  Guide  des  monuments  d' Autun.  Paris,  Picard,  1909.  8vo. 

Dehio,  Georg.  Geschichte  der  deutschen  Kunst.  Berlin  und  Leipzig,  de  Gruyter, 
1921.  2  vols.  4to. 

Dehio,  Georg  und  von  Bezold,  Gust.  Die  Denkmdler  der  deutschen  Bildhauerkunst. 
Berlin,  Wasmuth,  s.  d.  3  vols.  Folio. 

D'Eu.s'L^j'Lko^old.  Vie  de  Gauzlin,  par  Andre  de  Fleury.  Orleans,  Jacob,  1853.  8vo. 
(Extrait  du  tome  II  des  Memoires  de  la  Societe  Archeologique  de  I’Orleanais.) 

Delort,  J.  Notice  sur  I  eglise  de  Saint-Pierre-des-Cuisines.  (Memoires  de  la  Societe 
Archeologique  du  Midi  de  la  France,  2me  serie,  XII,  1880-1882,  200.) 

Demay,  Germain.  Le  costume  au  moyen  age  d'apres  les  sceaux.  Paris,  Dumoulin, 
1880.  8vo. 

Devic,  Dom  Cl.,  et  Vaisette,  Dom  J.  Histoire  generale  de  Languedoc.  Ed.  Dulaur- 
ier,  Mabille  et  Barry.  Toulouse,  Privat,  1852-1892.  15  vols.  4to. 

Dibelius,  Franz.  Die  Bernwardstur  zu  Hildesheim.  Strassburg,  Heitz,  1907.  8vo. 

Didron.  Manuel  d' iconographie  chretienne  grecque  et  latine.  Paris,  Imprimerie 
Royale,  1845.  8vo. 

Diehl,  Charles.  Les  mosdiques  byzantines  de  Saint-Luc.  (Monuments  Plot,  1896, 
III,  231.) 

Manuel  db art  byzantin.  Paris,  Picard,  1910.  8vo. 

Diehl,  Charles  et  le  Tourneau,  M.  Les  mosdiques  de  Saint-Demetrius  de  Salonique. 
(Fondation  Plot,  1910,  XVIII,  225.) 

Diehl,  Charles,  le  Tourneau,  M.,  Saladin,  H.  Les  monuments  chretiens  de  Saloni¬ 
que.  Paris,  Leroux,  1918.  2  vols.  Folio. 

Dieulafoy,  Marcel.  La  statuaire  polychrome  en  Espagne.  Paris,  Hachette,  1908. 
Folio. 


346  BOOKS  REFERRED  TO 

Dorez,  Leon.  Les  manuscrits  a  peintures  de  la  bibliotheque  de  Lord  Leicester  h  Holk- 
ham  Hall,  Norfolk.  Paris,  Leroux,  1908.  Folio. 

Doring,  Oskar.  Der  romanische  Grabstein  in  Altenplathow .  (Zeitschrift  fiir  christ- 
liche  Kunst,  1907.) 

Duchesne,  L.,  Saint  Jacques  en  Galice.  Toulouse,  Privat,  1900.  8vo. 

Dufourcet,  J.-Eugene.  Les  voies  romaines  et  les  chemins  de  Saint-Jacques  dans 
I'ancienne  Novempopulanie.  (Congres  Archeologique  de  France,  1888,  LV,  241.) 

Durand,  Georges.  Eglises  romanes  des  Voges.  Paris,  Champion,  1913.  4to. 

Durand,  Julien.  Monuments  figures  du  moyen  age  executes  d'apres  des  textes  litur- 
giques.  Caen,  Delesques,  1889.  8vo.  (Extrait  du  Bulletin  monumental,  1888, 
LIV,  521.) 

Ebersolt,  Jean.  Mission  archeologique  de  Constantinople.  Paris,  Leroux,  1921.  8vo. 

Egidi,  Pietro.  /  capitelli  romanici  di  Nazaret.  (Dedalo,  1921,  I,  761.) 

Escalona,  Romualdo.  Historia  del  real  monasterio  de  Sahagun.  Madrid,  I  barra, 
1782.  4to. 

Escher,  Konrad.  Die  Miniaturen  in  den  Easier  Bibliotheken,  Museen  und  Archiven. 
Basel,  Spittlers,  1917.  Folio. 

Espitalier,  I’Abbe  H.  Les  ev^ues  de  Frejus.  Draguignan,  1894.  Pamphlet. 

Fage,  Rene.  L’eglise  de  Luhersac  {Correze).  (Bulletin  monumental,  1912,  LXXVI, 

38-) 

Fatigati,  D.,  Enrique  Serrano.  Escultura  romanica  en  Espana.  Madrid,  Sales, 
1900.  4to.  (Boletin  de  la  Sociedad  Espahola  de  Excursiones,  1900,  VIII, 
181.) 

Esculturas  de  los  sighs  IX  al  XIII.  (Boletin  de  la  Sociedad  Espanola  de  Ex¬ 
cursiones,  IX,  1901,  35,  59.) 

Portadas  artisticas  de  monumentos  espanoles.  Madrid,  Hauser  y  Menet,  (1907). 
4to. 

Portadas  del periodo  romdnico  y  del  de  transicion  al  ojival.  (Boletin  de  la  Sociedad 
Espanola  de  Excursiones,  1906,  XIV,  6.) 

Fayolle,  Marquis  de.  La  basilique  Saint-Front  de  Perigueux.  (Bulletin  monu¬ 
mental,  1920,  LXIX,  197.) 

Felibien,  Dom  Michel.  Histoire  de  Vabbaye  royale  de  St.-Denis  en  France.  Paris, 
Leonard,  1706.  Folio. 

F^:rotin,  D.  Marius.  Histoire  de  Vabbaye  de  Silos.  Paris,  Leroux,  1897.  8vo. 

Recueil  des  chartes  de  Vabbaye  de  Silos.  Paris,  Leroux,  1897.  8vo. 

Ferrari,  Filippo.  Santa  Maria  Maggiore  di  Guardiagrele .  Guardiagrele,  Palmerio, 
1905.  4to. 

Fett,  Harry.  Billedhuggerkunsten  i  Norge  under  Sverreaetten.  Kristiania,  Cammer- 
meyer,  1908.  4to. 

Fita,  F.  Le  codex  de  S aint-Jacques-de-Compostelle .  Paris,  Maisonneuve  et  Cie., 
1882.  8vo. 

Fita,  P.  Fidel  y  Fernandez-Guerra,  D.  Aureliano.  Recuedos  de  un  viage  d  San¬ 
tiago  de  Galicia.  Madrid,  Lezcano,  1880.  qto. 

Fleury,  Edouard.  Antiquites  et  monuments  du  departement  de  VAisne.  Paris, 
Claye,  1877-1882.  4  vols.  Folio. 

Fleury,  Gabriel.  Etude  sur  les  portails  images  du  XI P  siecle.  Mamers,  Fleury  et 
Dangin,  1904.  4to. 


BOOKS  REFERRED  TO 


347 

Fogolari,  Gino.  Cividale  del  Friuli.  Bergamo,  Istituto  Italiano  d’arti  Grafiche, 
1906.  8vo.  Italia  Artistica,  No.  23. 

Folnesics,  Hans.  Die  illuminierten  Handschriften  in  Dalmatien.  Liepzig,  Hierse- 
mann,  1917.  Folio. 

Die  illuminierten  Handschriften  im  Oesterreichischen  Kiistenlande  in  Istrien  und 
der  Stadt  Driest.  Leipzig,  Hiersemann,  1917.  Folio. 

Foncin,  Pierre.  Guide  a  la  Cite  de  Carcassonne.  Toulouse,  Privat,  1902.  120. 

Font,  Frangois.  Histoire  de  I'abbaye  royale  de  Saint-Michel  de  Cuxa.  Perpignan, 
Comet,  1881.  120. 

Fontenay,  Harold  de  et  Charmasse,  Anatole  de.  Autun  et  ses  monuments.  Autun, 
Dejussieu,  1880.  120. 

Forot,  Victor.  Catalogue  raisonne  des  richesses  monumentales  et  artistiques  du 
departement  de  la  Correze.  Paris,  Schemit,  1913.  8vo. 

Frothingham,  a.  L.  a  new  Mithraic  relief  from  Syria.  (American  journal  of 
archaeology,  1918,  XXII,  54.) 

Furmankiewicz,  Casimira.  La  porte  de  bronze  de  la  cathedrale  de  Gniezno.  (Gazette 
des  beaux-arts,  1921,  361.) 

Gabelentz,  Hans  von  der.  Mittelalterliche  Plastik  in  Venedig.  Leipzig,  Hiersemann. 
1903.  8 VO. 

Gall,  Ernst.  Die  Apostelreliefs  im  Mailander  Dom.  (Monatshefte  fiir  Kunstwissen- 
schaft,  1921,  XIV,  I.) 

Garcia  de  Pruneda,  Salvador.  Cuatro  iglesias  rorndnicas  en  la  ria  de  Camarinas. 
(Boletin  de  la  Sociedad  Espanola  de  Excursiones,  1907,  XV,  156.) 

Gauthey,  J.  Christophe.  Mosdiques  dans  les  ruines  de  Peglise  prieurale  de  Gana- 
gobie.  (Revue  de  I’art  chretien,  1898,  XLI,  310.) 

George,}.,  et  Guerin-Boutaud,  A1.  Annexe  de  V interpretation  du  monogramme  de  la 
cathedrale.  (Bulletin  mensuel  de  la  Societe  Archeologique  et  Historique  de  la 
Charente,  Serie  VIII,  No.  92,  Mars,  1920,  6.) 

Gerola,  Giuseppe.  An  old  representation  of  Theodoric.  (Burlington  magazine,  1918, 
XXXII,  146.) 

Girardin.  Histoire  de  la  ville  et  de  Veglise  de  Frejus.  Paris,  Delaulne,  s.  d.  120. 

Giraud.  Essai  historique  sur  I'abbaye  de  S.  Barnard  et  sur  la  ville  de  Romans.  Lyon, 
Perrin,  1856.  8vo. 

Goldschmidt,  Adolph.  Der  Albanipsalter  in  Hildesheim.  Berlin,  Siemens,  1895. 
8vo. 

Die  Elfenbeinskulpturen  aus  der  Zeit  der  Karolingischen  und  Sdchsischen  Kaiser. 
Berlin,  Cassirer,  1914.  2  vols.  Folio.  Denkmaler  der  deutschen  Kunst. 

Die  Stilentwickelung  der  romanischen  Skulptur  in  Sachsen.  (Jahrbuch  der  koniglich 
preussischen  Kunstsammlungen,  1900,  XXI,  225.) 

Gomez-Moreno,  Manuel.  Iglesias  mozdrabes.  Madrid,  Centro  de  Estudios  His- 
toricos,  1919.  2  vols.  4to. 

San  Pedro  de  la  Nave.  (Boletin  del  Centro  Excursionista  de  Zamora,  Agosto- 
Diciembre  de  191 1,  Ano  II,  Niimero  9.) 

Santa  Marta  de  Tera.  (Boletin  de  la  Sociedad  Espanola  de  Excursiones,  1908, 
XVI,  81.) 

Graeven,  Hans.  Friihchristliche  und  mittelalterliche  Elfenbeinwerke  in  photo- 
graphischer  Nachbildung.  Serie  1.  Aus  Sammlungen  in  England.  Serie  11. 


348  BOOKS  REFERRED  TO 

Aus  Sarnmlungen  in  Italien.  Gottingen,  Archaologische  Institut,  1898.  1  vols. 
120. 

Die  V orlage  des  Utrechtpsalters.  (Repertorium  fiir  Kunstwissenschaft,  1898,  XXI, 
28.) 

Grasset,  M.  La  Societe  Archeologique  de  Montpellier,  ses  travaux  et  ses  collections . 
Montpellier,  Martel,  1882.  8vo. 

Gruneisen,  W.  de.  Les  caracteristiques  de  Fart  copte.  Florence,  Alinari,  1922.  4to. 

Sainte-Marie  Antique.  Rome,  Bretschneider,  191 1.  Folio. 

Hamann,  Richard.  Deutsche  und franzbsische  Kunstim  Mittelalter.  Marburg,  Kunst- 
geschichtliches  Seminar,  1922.  4to. 

Helbig,  Jules.  La  sculpture  et  les  arts  plastiques  au  pays  de  Liege  et  sur  les  bords  de  la 
Meuse.  Bruges,  Desclee,  de  Brouwer  et  Cie.,  1890.  4to. 

Herbert,  J.  A.  Illuminated  manuscripts.  London,  Methuen,  1911.  8vo. 
Homburger,  Otto.  Die  Anfdnge  des  Malschule  von  Winchester  im  X.  Jahrhundert. 
Leipzig,  Weicher,  1912.  8vo. 

Houvet,  Etienne.  Cathedrale  de  Chartres.  Chartres,  Durand,  (1920).  6  vols.  4to. 
IvEKOvic,  Cirillo  M.  Dalmatiens  Architektur  und  Plastik.  Wien,  Schroll,  1910. 
5  vols.  Folio. 

[James,  M.  R.]  Catalogue  of  the  manuscripts  and  early  printed  books  of  the  library  of 
y.  Pierpont  Morgan.  London.  Privately  printed  for  the  Chiswick  Press,  1906. 
Folio. 

Descriptive  catalogue  of  the  Latin  manuscripts  in  the  John  Ry lands  Library  at  Man¬ 
chester.  Manchester,  University  Press,  1921.  2  vols.  4to. 

Jara,  Alfonso.  Impresiones  de  una  visita  d  Segovia.  (Boleti'n  de  la  Sociedad  Espahola 
de  Excursiones,  1900,  VIII,  49.) 

Jeffery,  George.  A  brief  description  of  the  Holy  Sepulchre  Jerusalem.  Cambridge, 
University  Press,  1919.  8vo. 

Joubin,  Andre,  ^uelques  aspects  archeologiques  du  Languedoc  mediterraneen.  (Revue 
archeologique,  1920,  269;  1921,  37.) 

(JuENiN.)  Nouvelle  histoire  de  Fabbaye  .  .  .  de  Saint  Fill bert  et  de  la  ville  de  Tournus. 
Dijon,  Fay,  1733.  4to. 

Karlinger,  Hans  von.  Die  hochromanische  Wandmalerei  in  Regensburg.  Miinchen, 
Schmidt,  1920.  4to. 

Kaufmann,  Karl  Maria.  Die  Menasstadt  und  das  Nationalheiligtum  der  altchrist- 
lichen  Aegypter.  Leipzig,  Hiersemann,  1910.  Folio. 

Kondakoff,  N.  Histoire  de  Fart  byzantin,  considers  principalement  dans  les  minia¬ 
tures.  Traduction  de  M.  Trawinski.  Paris,  Ronam,  1886.  2  vols.  4to. 
Kowalczyk,  Georg.  Denkmdler  der  Kunst  in  Dalmatien.  Berlin,  Verlag  fiir  Kunst¬ 
wissenschaft,  1910.  2  vols.  Folio. 

Kurth,  G.  Renier  de  Huy,  auteur  veritable  des  fonts  baptismaux  de  Saint- Bar  the  lemy 
de  Liege  et  le  pretendu  Lambert  Patras.  (Academic  Royale  de  Belgique,  Bulle¬ 
tins,  1903,  519.) 

Labande,  L.-H.  L’eglise  Notre-Dame-des-Doms  dl’  Avignon  des  origines  au  XL  IP 
siecle.  Paris,  Imprimerie  Rationale,  1907.  (Extrait  du  Bulletin  archeologique, 
1906.) 

Lacroix,  J.  Espalion.  Esquisses  et  souvenirs.  (Bulletin  de  la  Solidarite  Avey- 
ronnaise,  1914,  VIII,  78.) 


BOOKS  REFERRED  TO 


349 

Lahondes,  Jules  de.  Les  monuments  de  Toulouse.  Histoire,  archeologie,  beaux-arts. 
Toulouse,  Privat,  1920.  410. 

Lamperez,  y  Romea,  Vicente.  Historia  de  la  arquitectura  cristiana  espanola  en  la 
edad  media.  Madrid,  Blass,  1909.  2  vols.  4to. 

Lasteyrie,  Charles  de.  L’abbaye  de  S.  Martial  de  Limoges.  Paris,  Picard,  1901.  8vo. 

Lasteyrie,  Robert  de.  Etude  archeologique  surVeglise  St. -Pierre  d' Aulnay.  Gazette 
archeologique,  1886,  XI,  277.) 

Etudes  sur  la  sculpture franqaise  au  moyen  age.  (Fondation  Piot,  1902,  VIII,  i.) 

L’ architecture  religieuse  en  France  d  I’epoque  romane.  Paris,  Picard,  1912.  4to. 

L'eglise  Saint-Martin  de  Tours.  Paris,  Imprimerie  Rationale,  1891.  4to.  (Extrait 
des  Memoiresde  I’Academie  des  Inscriptions  et  Belles-Lettres,  XXXIV,  lere 
partie.) 

Laurent,  Marcel.  Les  ivoires  pregothiques  conserves  en  Belgique.  Bruxelles,  Vro- 
mant,  1912.  8vo. 

Laurin,  Abbe  L.  Notice  sur  V antique  abbaye  de  St.-Victor  de  Marseille.  Marseilles, 
Aschero-Vial,  1915.  120. 

Lavergne,  Adrien.  Les  chemins  de  Saint-Jacques  en  Gasco'^ne.  Bordeaux,  Chollet, 
1887.  (Extrait  de  la  Revue  de  Gascogne.) 

Lefebvre  des  Noettes.  La  tapisserie  de  Bayeux  datee  par  le  harnachement  des 
chevaux  et  Pequipement  des  cavaliers.  (Bulletin  monumental,  1912,  LXVI,  213.) 

Nouvelles  remarques  sur  la  date  probable  de  la  tapisserie  de  Bayeux.  (Bulletin  monu¬ 
mental,  1914,  LXXVIII,  129.) 

Lefevre-Pontalis,  Eugene.  Deux  statues  du  XII  siecle  au  musee  de  Bourges. 
(Bulletin  monumental,  I9I3,LXXVII,  140.) 

L' architecture  religieuse  dans  I'ancien  diocese  de  Soissons  au  XP  et  au  XII  siecle. 
Paris,  Plon,  1894.  2  vols.  Folio. 

L’eglise  de  la  Celle-Bruere.  (Bulletin  monumental,  1910,  LXXIV,  272.) 

Les  campagnes  de  construction  de  Notre-Dame  d'Etampes.  (Bulletin  monumental, 
1909,  LXXIII,  5.) 

Leguina,  D.,  Enrique  de.  Encuadernaciones  romano-bizantinas.  (Boletin  de  la 
Sociedad  Espanola  de  Excursiones,  1895,  II,  246.) 

Esmaltes  espanoles.  Madrid,  Fe,  1909.  160. 

Leidinger,  Georg.  Miniaturen  aus  Handschriften  der  kgl.  Hof-  und  Staatsbibliothek 
in  Munchen.  Miinchen,  Riehn  und  Tietze,  s.  d.  5  vols.  Folio. 

Lemaire,  R.  Les  origines  du  style  gothique  en  Brabant.  Bruxelles,  Vromant,  1906. 
8vo. 

Lenoir,  Alexandre.  Monumens  des  arts  liberaux,  mecaniques  et  industriels  de  la 
France.  Paris,  Techener,  1840.  Folio. 

Musee  des  monumens franqais.  Paris,  Guilleminet,  1800-1821.  8  vols.  8vo. 

Lev6,  a.  Anteriorite  de  la  tapisserie  de  Bayeux  sur  la  chanson  de  Roland.  (Bulletin 
monumental,  1913,  LXXVII,  1913,  129.) 

Ligtenberg,  Dr.  Raphael.  Die  romanische  Steinplastik  in  den  nbrdlichen  Nieder- 
landen.  Haag,  Nijhoff,  1918.  4to. 

Lindner,  Dr.  Arthur.  Die  Basler  Galluspforte  und  andere  romanische  Bildwerke  der 
Schweiz.  Strassburg,  Heitz,  1899.  8vo. 

L0CQ.UIN,  Jean.  Nevers  et  Moulins.  Paris,  Laurens,  1913.  4to.  (Les  villes  d’art 
celebres.) 


BOOKS  REFERRED  TO 


350 

Longuemar,  M.  de.  Epigraphie  du  haul  Poitou.  (Memoires  de  la  Societe  des  Anti- 
quaires  de  TOuest,  1863,  XXVIII,  43.) 

Lorain,  M.  P.  Essai  historique  sur  I'abbaye  de  Cluny.  Dijon,  Popelain,  1839,  8vo. 

Lucot,  M.  le  Chanoine.  L'egHse  de  Pinson  et  sainte  Posenne.  Chilons-sur-Marne, 

‘  Thouille,  1882.  120. 

Mabillon,  Jean.  Annales  ordinis  Sancti  Benedicti.  Lucae,  Venturini,  1740.  6  vols. 
Folio. 

Maclagen,  Eric.  An  early  Christian  ivory  relief  of  the  miracle  of  Cana.  (Burling¬ 
ton  magazine,  1921,  XXXVIII,  178.) 

Male,  Emile.  La  part  de  Suger  dans  la  creation  de  V iconographie  du  moyen  age. 
(Revue  de  I’art  ancien  et  moderne,  1914,  XXXV,  91,  161,  253,  339.) 

Uart  allemand  et  V art  franqais.  Paris,  Colin,  1917.  120.  Replies  by  German 
scholars  in  Monatshefte  fiir  Kunstwissenschaft,  X  Jahrgang,  1917,  127. 

Uart  du  moyen  dge  et  les  pelerinages.  Les  routes  d’ltalie.  (Revue  de  Paris,  15  Oc- 
tobre,  1919.)  Les  routes  de  France  et  d’Espagne.  (Revue  de  Paris,  15  Fev- 
rier,  1920.) 

Le  port  ail  de  Senlis  et  son  influence.  (Revue  de  I’art  ancien  et  moderne,  1911,  161.) 

Les  chapiteaux  romans  du  musee  de  Toulouse.  (Revue  archeologique,  Troisieme 
Serie,  1892,  XX,  2,  28,  176.) 

Les  influences  du  drame  liturgique  sur  la  sculpture  romane.  (Revue  de  I’art,  1907, 
II,  81.) 

Manerba,  D.  Pasquale.  Memorie  sulla  origine  della  cittcL  di  Foggia  e  sua  mag- 
gior  chiesa.  Napoli,  Morelli,  1798.  8vo. 

Marignan,  a.  La  decoration  monumentale  des  eglises  de  la  France  septentrionle  du 
XIL^  au  XIIL‘  siecle.  Paris,  Leroux,  1911.  120. 

Le  port  ail  occidental  de  Notre-Dame  de  Chartres.  (Le  moyen  age,  1898,  2e  serie,  II, 
34I-) 

Uecole  de  sculpture  en  Provence  du  XIL  au  XIII  siecle.  (Moyen  §.ge,  1899,  2e  serie, 

in,  I.) 

Marrier,  Dom  Martin  et  Chesne,  Andre  du.  Bibliotheca  Cluniacensis.  Paris, 
1614. 

Martene,  Edmund,  et  Durand,  Ursin.  Thesaurus  novus  anecdotarum.  Lutetiae 
Parisiorum,  Sumptibus  bibliopolarum  Parisiensium,  1727.  3  vols.  Folio. 

Martin,  Camille.  U art  roman  en  France.  L’architecture  et  la  decoration.  Paris, 
Eggimann,  s.  d.  3  vols.  Folio. 

Mayeux,  Albert.  Saint-Jean-le-Vieux  d  Perpignan.  (Bulletin  monumental,  1913, 
LXXVII,  73.) 

Mayeur,  P.  Le  portail  occidental  de  Ste. -Marie  d'Oloron.  (Revue  de  I’art  chretien, 
1909,  LIX,  23.) 

L'egHse  de  T ancien  prieure  clunisien  de  Charlieu.  (Revue  de  I’art  chretien, 
1909,  LII,  33.) 

McDougall,  Dorothy.  The  choir  capitals  of  St.-Pierre-en-Haute,  Chauvigny 
(Poitou).  (Burlington  magazine,  1920,  XXXVI,  ii.) 

Mege,  Alexandre  du.  Description  du  musee  des  antiques  de  Toulouse.  Toulouse, 
Douladoure,  1835. 

Le  cloitre  de  la  Daurade.  (Memoires  de  la  Societe  Archeologique  du  Midi  de  la 
France,  1834-1835,  II,  241.) 


BOOKS  REFERRED  TO 


351 

Notice  des  monuments  antiques  et  des  objets  de  sculpture  moderne  conserve  dans  le 
musee  de  Toulouse.  Toulouse,  Douladore,  1828.  120. 

Me  LIDA,  Jose  Ramon.  La  iglesia  de  San  Juan  de  Rabanera  en  Soria  (Boletin  de  la 
Sociedad  Espanola  de  Excursiones,  1910,  XVIII,  2.) 

Mely,  F.  de.  La  renaissance  et  ses  origines  franqaises.  (Revue  de  I’art  ancien  et 
moderne,  1906,  62.) 

Les  primitifs  franqais  et  leurs  signatures.  Les  sculpteurs.  Paris,  I’Ami  des  Monu¬ 
ments  et  des  Arts,  1908.  8vo.  (Extrait  de  I’Ami  des  monuments  et  des 
arts.) 

Nos  vieilles  cathedrales  et  leurs  maitres  d'oeuvre.  (Revue  archeologique,  1920. 
290;  1921,  77.) 

Merton,  Adolf.  Die  Buchmalerei  in  St.  Gallen.  Leipzig,  Hiersemann,  1912.  Folio. 

Michel,  Andre.  Histoire  de  T art.  Paris,  Colin,  1905-1913.  lovols.  8vo. 

Les  accroissements  du  departement  des  sculptures  au  Musee  du  Louvre.  (Gazette  des 
beaux-arts,  1917,  LIX,  49.) 

Les  sculptures  de  Tancienne  faqade  de  N otre-Dame-de-la-Couldre  a  Parthenay. 
(Monuments  Piot,  1918,  XXII,  179.) 

Michel,  Edmond.  Monuments  religieux,  civils  et  militaires  du  Gdtinais.  Paris, 
Champion,  1897.  2  vols.  4to. 

Millenaire  de  Cluny.  Macon,  Protat,  1910.  2  vols.  8vo.  (Annales  de  I’Academie  de 
Macon,  jme  Serie,  tome  XV,  le  et  2e  partie.) 

Millet,  Gabriel.  Le  monastere  de  Daphni.  Paris,  Leroux,  1899.  Folio. 

Mosaiques  de  Daphni.  (Fondation  Piot,  1895,  I97-) 

Recherches  sur  T iconographie  de  Tevangile  aux  XIV.,  XV  et  XVI  siecles.  Paris, 
Fontemoing,  1916.  8vo. 

Mitchell,  H.  P.  Some  enamels  of  the  school  of  Godefroid  de  Claire.  (Burlington 
magazine,  1919,  XXXIV,  85;  1920,  XXXV,  34,  92,  217;  1920,  XXXVI,  18, 
128.) 

Molinier,  Emile.  Histoire  generale  des  arts  appliques  h  I industrie .  Paris,  Levy, 
18961.  6  vols.  Folio. 

Monaca,  Andrea  della.  Memoria  historica  dell  antichitd  della  cittd,  di  Brindisi. 
(The  title  page  is  lacking  in  the  copy  in  the  library  at  Brindisi.) 

Monteverdi,  Angelo.  II  duomo  di  Cremona.  Milano,  Bonomi,  191 1.  120.  LTtalia 
Monumentale,  No.  18. 

Monumentos  arquitectonicos  de  Espana,  publicados  de  rl.  orden.  Madrid,  Imprenta 
nacional,  1877  35  cuadernos.  Great  Folio. 

Morellet,  Barat,  Bussiere.  Le  Nivernois,  album  historique  et pittoresque.  Nevers, 
Bussiere,  1838.  2  vols.  Folio. 

Mortet,  Victor.  Recueil  de  textes  relatifs  d,  T histoire  de  V architecture  et  d  la  condition 
des  architectes  en  France,  au  moyen  dge.  Paris,  Picard,  1911.  120. 

Mulbe,  W.  H.  von  der.  Die  Darstellung  des  jilngsten  Gerichtes  an  den  romanischen 
und gotischen  Kirchenportalen  Frankreichs.  Leipzig,  Klinkhardt  und  Biermann, 
1911.  8vo. 

Museo  espanol  de  antiguedades.  Madrid,  Fortanet,  1872!.  iivols.  Folio. 

Nella  terra  di  Bari.  Ricordi  de  arte  medioevale.  Trani,  Vecchi,  1898.  4to. 

Nicolas,  Abbe  C.  Construction  et  reparations  de  Teglise  de  Saint-Gilles.  (Memoires 
de  I’Academie  de  Nimes,  VII  serie,  1900,  XXIII,  95.) 


352  BOOKS  REFERRED  TO 

XoDiER,  Ch.,  Taylor,  J.,  et  de  Cailleux,  Alph.  Voyages  pittoresques  et  roman- 
tiques  dans  r ancienne  France.  Paris,  Didot,  1825.  7  vols.  Folio. 

Notice  des  tableaux^  statues,  bustes,  bas-reliefs  et  antiquites  composant  le  musee  de 
Toulouse.  (Toulouse,  1818.)  120. 

Omont,  H.  Le  mystere  d'Emmaus.  Paris,  1913.  (Extrait  de  la  Bibliotheque  de 
I’Ecole  des  Chartes,  LXXIV,  1913.) 

Peintures  de  Vevangile  de  saint  Matthieu.  (Fondation  Piot,  VII,  1900,  175.) 
Pemtures  d’un  evangelaire  syriaque  du  XIP  ou  XIIP  siecle.  (Fondation  Piot, 
1911,  XIX,  201.) 

Pace,  Biagio.  Escursioni  in  Asia  Minore.  Monumenti  medievali  de  Adalia  e 
Conia.  (Rassegna  d’Arte,  1920,  XX,  102.) 

Pagenstecher,  Rudolf.  Apulien.  Leipzig,  Seemann,  1914.  120.  Beriihmte  Kunst- 
stadten,  X"o.  65. 

Pelka,  Otto.  Elfenbein.  Berlin,  Schmidt,  1920.  120. 

Perdrizet,  P.  et  Chesnay,  L.  La  metropole  de  Serres.  (Fondation  Piot,  1903,  X, 

1 23-) 

Perkins,  Thomas.  The  cathedral  church  of  Saint  Albans.  London,  Bell,  1903. 
120. 

Philippe,  Andre.  Veglise  de  la  Charite-sur-Loire.  (Bulletin  monumental,  1905, 

LXIX,469.) 

PijOAN,  Joseph.  Les  minioJures  de  V octateuch  a  les  biblies  romaiques  catalanes. 
(Institut  d’Estudis  Catalans,  Annuari,  Any  4,  475.) 

The  Mozarabic  churches  of  the  ninth  and  tenth  centuries  in  Spain.  (Burlington 
magazine,  1922,  LX,  214.) 

Pillion,  Louise.  P>eux  vies  d'eveques  sculptes  a  la  cathedrale  de  Rouen.  (Gazette  des 
Beaux  Arts,  1903,  44I;  1904,  149.) 

Les  soubassements  des  portails  lateraux  de  la  cathedrale  de  Rouen.  (Revue  de  I’art 
ancien  et  moderne,  1905,  81,  199.) 

PiNARD,  M.  Monographic  de  I’eglise  Notre-Lame  de  Corbeil.  (Revue  archeologique, 
1845,11,165,643.) 

Plancher,  Fr.  Urbain.  Histoire  generale  et  particuliere  de  Bourgogne.  Dijon, 
.'\ntoine  de  Fay,  1739.  4  vols.  Folio. 

Plat,  Abbe  Gabriel.  Notes  pour  servir  d  Vhistoire  monumentale  de  la  Trinite  de 
Venddme.  Vendome,  Vilette,  1907.  8vo.  (Extrait  du  Bulletin  de  la  Societe 
.Archeologique  du  Vendomois.) 

PoGGi,  Giovanni.  Arte  medioevale  negli  Abruzzi.  Roma,  Itala  Ars,  1914.  Folio. 
PoLENTiNOS,  Conde  de.  Excursion  d  Santillana  y  San  Vicente  de  la  Barquera.  (Bole- 
tin  de  la  Sociedad  Espahola  de  Excursiones,  XVI,  1908,  68.) 

Por^:e,  Charles.  L' abbaye  de  Vezelay.  Paris,  Laurens,  s.  d.  120. 

Porter,  A.  Kingsley.  La  sculpture  du  XIP  Siecle  en  Bourgogne.  Paris,  Gazette  des 
beaux-arts,  1921.  4to.  (Extrait  de  la  Gazette  des  beaux-arts,  1920,  5e  Periode, 

II,  73-) 

Les  debuts  de  la  sculpture  romane.  (Gazette  des  beaux-arts,  1919,  LXI,  47.) 
Lombard  architecture.  New  Haven,  Yale  University  Press,  1916.  3  vols.  8vo 
and  atlas  in  Folio. 

Pilgrimage  sculpture.  (American  journal  of  archaeology,  1922,  XXVI,  i.) 
Romanesque  capitals.  (Fogg  Museum  Notes,  1922,  I,  2,  23.) 


BOOKS  REFERRED  TO 


353 

The  development  of  sculpture  in  Lombardy  in  the  XII  century.  (American  journal 
of  archaeology,  1915,  XIX,  137.) 

The  sculpture  of  the  West.  Boston,  Marshall  Jones,  1921.  Pamphlet. 

Two  romanesque  sculptures  in  France  by  Italian  masters.  (American  journal  of 
archaeology,  1920,  XXIV,  121.) 

Poussin,  Abbe.  Monographie  de  V abbaye  et  de  I'eglise  de  St.-Remi  de  Reims.  Reims, 
Lemoine-Canart,  1857.  120. 

PouzET.  Notes  sur  les  chapiteaux  de  r abbaye  de  Cluny.  Paris,  Champion,  1912.  4to. 
(Extrait  de  la  Revue  de  I’art  chretien,  1912.) 

Prior,  Edward  S.,  and  Gardner,  Arthur.  An  account  of  mediaeval  figure-sculpture 
in  England.  Cambridge,  University  Press,  1912.  8vo. 

PuiG  y  Cadafalch,  Falguera,  Antoni  de,  Goday  y  Casals,  J.  L’ arquitectura  roman- 
ica  a  Catalunya.  Barcelona,  Institut  d’Estudis  Catalans,  1909.  3  vols.  8vo. 

Quick  ERA  T,  J.  Histoire  de  la  costume  en  France.  Paris,  Hachette,  1875.  8vo. 

Rapport  de  la  commission  chargee  de  V  ex  amen  des  travaux  a  executer  pour  la  restaura- 
tion  et  r assainissement  de  I'eglise  St.-Etienne  de  Nevers.  Bulletin  de  la  Societe 
Nivernaise  des  Sciences,  Lettres  et  Arts,  1854,  I,  109.) 

Revoil,  Henry.  Architecture  romane  du  midi  de  la  France.  Paris,  Morel,  1874. 
3  vols.  Folio. 

Riehl,  Berthold.  Geschichte  der  Stein-  und  Holzplastik  m  Ober-Bayern.  (Abhand- 
lungen  der  historischen  Klasse  der  kdniglich  Bayerischen  xAkademie  der  Wis- 
senschaften,  1906,  LXXVI,  i.) 

Riu  y  Cabanas,  Ramon.  Efigie  de  Nuestra  Senora  del  claustro  en  la  catedral  de  Sol- 
sona.  (Boletin  de  la  Sociedad  Espanola  de  Excursiones,  1895,  III,  94.) 

Rivoira,  G.  T.  Architettura  musulmana.  Milano,  Hoepli,  1914.  4to. 

Rizzo,  G.  E.,  e  Toesca,  Pietro.  Storia  del!  arte  classica  e  italiana.  Torino,  Unione 
Tipografico-Editrice  Torinese,  in  course  of  publication. 

Roblot-Deloudre,  Louise.  St.-Loup-de-Naud.  (Fondation  Piot,  1913,  XXI,  in.) 

Rochias,  Abbe  G.  Les  chapiteaux  de  I'eglise  de  Saint-Nectaire.  (Bulletin  monu¬ 
mental,  1909,  LXXIII,  213.) 

Rodrigo,  Juan  Pedro.  Recuerdo  del  monasterio  de  Santo  Domingo  de  Silos.  Madrid, 
San  Francisco  de  Sales,  1916.  120. 

Rohault  de  Fleury.  La  sainte  Vierge.  Paris,  Poussielque,  1878.  2  vols.  4to. 

Roosval,  Johnny.  Die  Steinmeister  Gottlands.  Stockholm,  Fritz,  1918.  Folio. 

Roschach,  Ernest.  Catalogue  des  antiquites  et  des  objets  d'art.  Musee  de  Toulouse. 
Toulouse,  Viguier,  1865.  8vo. 

Roulin,  Dom  Eugene.  L'ancien  tresor  de  V abbaye  de  Silos.  Paris,  Leroux,  1901. 
4to. 

Les  cloitres  de  I  abbaye  de  Silos.  (Revue  de  I’art  chretien,  1909,  LIX,  75,  166,  359  ; 
1910,  LX,  I.) 

Les  eglises  de  I  abbaye  de  Silos.  (Revue  de  I’art  chretien,  1908,  LVIII,  289,  371.) 

Oeuvres  de  sculpture  de  I  abbaye  de  Silos.  (Revue  de  I’art  chretien,  1909,  LIX,  i.) 

Orfevierie  et  emaillerie  mobilier  liturgique  d'Espagne.  (Revue  de  I’art  chretien, 
1903,  XLVI,  19,  201,  292.) 

Roux,  Abbe  J.  La  basilique  St.-Front  de  Perigueux.  Perigueux,  Cassard,  1920.  4to. 

Rupin,  Ernest.  L' abbaye  et  les  cloitres  de  Mois sac.  Paris,  Picard,  1897.  qto. 

H oeuvre  de  Limoges.  Paris,  Picard,  1890.  4to. 


BOOKS  REFERRED  TO 


354 

Rupp,  Fritz.  Inkrustationstil  der  romanischen  Baukunst  zu  Florenz.  Strassburg, 
Heitz,  1912.  8vo. 

Sacs,  J.  El  Beda  de  Girona.  (Veil  i  Nou,  Any  V,  287,  329,  345, 386,  408.) 

Sahuc,  J.  IJart  roman  a  Saint-Pons-de-Thomieres.  Montpellier,  Societe  Anonyme 
de  rimprimerie  Generale  du  Midi,  1908.  4to. 

Santeramo,  S.  II  simbolismo  della  cattedrale  di  Barletta.  Barletta,  Dellisanti,  1917. 
8vo. 

Sauerlandt,  Max.  Deutsche  Plastik  des  Mittelalters .  Leipzig,  Karl  Robert  Lange- 
wiesche  Verlag,  s.*d. 

ScANNO,  Dionigi.  Storia  dell'  arte  in  Sardegna  dal  XI  al  XIV  secolo.  Cagliari-Sas- 
sari,  Mon  torsi,  1907.  4to. 

ScHLUMBERGER,  Gustave.  Bas-rcUeJ  du  campo  Angaran  a  Venice  representant  un 
empereur  byzantin  du  X  siecle.  (Byzantinische  Zeitschrift,  1893,  II,  192.) 

Deux  bas-reliefs  Byzantins  de  steatite.  (Fondation  Piot,  1902,  IX,  229.) 

L' epopee  byzantine.  Paris,  Hachette,  1896-1905.  3  vols.  8vo. 

L'ivoire  Barberini.  (Fondation  Piot,  1900,  VII,  79.) 

Un  ivoire  chretien  inedit,  Musee  du  Louvre.  (Fondation  Piot,  1894,  165.) 

ScHMARSOw,  August.  Kompositionsgesetze  in  der  Kunst  des  Mittelalters.  Leipzig, 
Teubner,  1920.  2  vols.  8vo  and  atlas  in  folio. 

ScHUBRiNG,  Paul.  Bischofsstuhle  und  Ambonen  in  Apulien.  (Zeitschrift  fiir  christ- 
liche  Kunst,  1900,  XIII,  193.) 

Schulz,  Guillermo.  Miniaturas  de  la  biblia  de  Avila.  (Boletin  de  la  Sociedad  Es- 
panola  de  Excursiones,  1897,  V,  100.) 

Schulz,  Heinrich  Wilhelm.  Denkmaler  der  Kunst  des  Mittelalters  in  Unteritalien. 
Dresden,  Schulz,  i860.  4  vols.  4to  and  atlas  in  folio. 

Semper,  H.  Ivoires  du  musee  national  de  Buda-Pesth.  (Revue  de  Tart  chretien, 
1897,  XL,  389,  477.) 

Sentenach,  N.  Crucifijos  romdnicos  espanoles.  (Boletin  de  la  Sociedad  Espanola 
de  Excursiones,  1903,  XI,  245.) 

Miniaturas  notables  del  Museo  Arqueologico  Nacional.  (Boletin  de  la  Sociedad 
Espanola  de  Excursiones,  1907,  XV,  215.) 

Relieves  en  marfil  del  area  de  San  Mill&n  de  la  Cogolla.  (Boletin  de  la  Sociedad 
Espanola  de  Excursiones,  1908,  XVI,  4.) 

Sepet,  Marius.  Les  prophetes  du  Christ,  etude  sur  les  origines  du  theatre  au  moyen 
dge.  (Bibliotheque  de  I’Ecole  des  Chartes,  1867,  XXVIII,  i,  210;  1868,  XXIX, 
105,  261.)  Published  separately,  Paris  Didier,  1878.  8vo. 

Stettiner,  Richard.  Die  illustrierten  Prudentiushandschriften.  Berlin,  Preuss, 
1895.  8vo. 

Strzygowski,  Josef.  Catalogue  general  des  antiques  egyptiennes  du  musee  du  Caire. 
Koptische  Kunst.  Vienne,  Holzhausen,  1904.  4to. 

Der  Bilderkreis  des  griechischen  Physiologus.  Leipzig,  Teubner,  1899.  8vo. 

Der  Dom  zu  Aachen  und  seiner  Entstellung.  Leipzig,  Heinrichs,  1904.  8vo. 

Der  koptische  Reiterheilige  und  der  hi.  Georg.  (Zeitschrift  fiir  Aegyptische  Sprache 
und  Altertumskunde,  1902,  XX,  49.) 

Die  altbyzantinische  Plastik  derBlutezeit.  (Byzantinische  Zeitschrift,  1892,  1,  575-) 

Die  Baukunst  der  Armenier  und  Europa.  Wien,  Schroll,  1918.  2  vols.  4to. 

Ilellenistiche  und  koptische  Kunst  in  Alexandria.  Wien,  Mechitharist,  1902.  8vo. 


BOOKS  REFERRED  TO 


355 


The  origin  oj  Christian  art.  (Burlington  magazine,  1911,  XX,  146.) 

SwARENSKi,  Georg.  Die  Salzburger  Malerei.  Leipzig,  Hiersemann,  1913.  2  vols. 
4to. 

Terret,  Victor.  La  sculpture  bourguignonne .  Paris,  L’Art  Catholique,  1914. 
Testi,  Laudedeo.  Le  baptistere  de  Parme.  Florence,  Sansoni,  1916.  qto. 

Texier,  Abbe.  Histoire  de  la  peinture  sur  verre  en  Limousin.  Paris,  Didron,  1847. 
120. 

Thiollier,  F.  Id  art  roman  a  Charlieu  et  en  Brionnais.  Montbrison,  Brassart,  1892. 
Folio. 

V estiges  de  V art  roman  en  Lyonnais.  (Bulletin  archeologique  du  Comite  des  Travaux 
Historiques  et  Scientifiques,  1892,  396.) 

Thomas,  Abbe  Jules.  Les  vitraux  de  Notre-Dame  de  Dijon.  Dijon,  Jobard,  1898, 
120. 

Thorel,  Oct.  U equipement  d' un pelerin picard  a  St.  Jacques  de  Compostelle.  Amiens. 
Yvert  et  Tellier,  1909.  8vo. 

Tikkanen,  J.  J.  Die  Psalterillustration  im  Mittelalter.  (Acta  Societatis  Scientiarum 
Fennicae,  Helsingforsicae,  1903.  qto.  Tomus  XXXI.) 

Tobler,  Titus  et  Molinier,  Augustus.  Ltinera  Hierosolymitana.  Genevae,  Fick, 
1879.  ^  vols.  8vo. 

Tourneau,  M.  le.  Les  mosai'ques  de  Sainte-Sophie  de  Salonique.  (Fondation  Plot, 
1909,  XVI,  39.) 

Treneff,  D.  K.  Miniatures  du  menologe  grec  du  XP  siecle  de  la  Bibliotheque  Syno- 
dale  d  Moscou.  Moscou,  1911.  Folio. 

Trutat,  M.  Ancien  hotel-de-ville  de  Saint- Antonin.  (Bulletin  archeologique  de  la 
Societe  Archeologique  de  Tarn-et-Garonne,  1876,  IV,  158.) 

Urlichs,  Carolus  Ludovicus.  Codex  urbis  Romae  topographicus.  Wirceburgi, 
Stahelianis,  1871.  120. 

Venturi,  Adolfo.  Storia  delV  arte  italiana.  Milano,  Hoepli,  1901  f.  7  vols.  8vo. 
Vigil,  Don  Ciriaco  Miguel.  Asturias  monumental.^  epigr&fica y  diplomatica.  Oviedo, 
Hospicio  Provincial,  1887.  410. 

Viollet-le-Duc,  Eugene  Emmanuel.  Dictionaire  raisonne  de  L architecture franqaise 
du  XP  au  XVP  Siecle.  Paris,  Morel,  1867.  10  vols.  8vo. 

ViREY,  Jean.  Les  dates  de  construction  de  Saint-Pholibert  de  Tournus.  (Bulletin 
monumental,  1903,  LXVII,  515.) 

ViTRY,  Paul.  La  cathedrale  de  Reims.  Paris,  Librairie  Centrale  des  Beaux  Arts, 
1920.  2  vols.  Folio. 

Une  tUe  de  Christ  du  XIL  siecle.  (Fondation  Piot,  1908,  XVI,  137.) 

ViTRY,  Paul  et  Briere,  Gaston.  Documents  de  sculpture  Jranqaise  du  moyen  dge. 
Paris,  Longuet,  1904.  Folio. 

LI eglise  abbatiale  de  Saint-Denis  et  ses  tombeaux.  Paris,  Longuet,  1908.  160. 
VivES,  Antonio.  Arqueta  arabe  de  Palencia.  (Boletin  de  la  Sociedad  Espanola  de 
Excursiones,  1894, 1,  34.) 

VoGE,  Wilhelm.  Der  provenqalische  Einfluss  in  Italien  und  das  Datum  der  Arler 
Porticus.  (Repertorium  fiir  Kunstwissenschaft,  1902,  XXV,  409.) 
Wackernagel,  Martin.  Die  Plastik  des  XI  und  XII  Jahrhunderts  in  Apulien. 
Leipzig,  Hiersemann,  1911.  4to. 

Die  AnJ tinge  des  monumentalen  Stiles  im  Mittelalter.  Strassburg,  Heitz,  1894.  8vo. 


356  BOOKS  REFERRED  TO 

Ueber  die  Bamberger  Domsculpturen.  (Repertorium  fiir  Kunstwissenschaft, 
1899,  XXII,  94  ;  1901,  XXIV,  195,  255.) 

Warner,  Sir  George.  Gospels  oj  Matilda,  Countess  of  Tuscany,  1055-1115.  Pri¬ 
vately  printed  for  the  Roxburghe  Club,  1917.  Folio. 

Warner,  George  Frederic  and  Wilson,  Henry  Austin.  The  Benedictional  of  St. 
Aethelwold.  Oxford.  Privately  printed  for  the  Roxburghe  Club,  1910,  Folio. 

Weber,  Paul.  Geistliches  Schauspiel  und  kirchliche  Kunst.  Stuttgart,  von  Ebner 
und  Seubert,  1894.  8vo. 

Weese,  Artur.  Die  Bamberger  Domskulpturen.  Strassburg,  Heitz,  1914.  2  vols. 
8vo. 

Weise,  G.  Studien  uher  Denkmdler  romanischer  Plastik  am  Oberrhein.  (Monats- 
hefte  fiir  Kunstwissenschaft,  1920,  XIII,  i.) 

Westwood,  J.  O.  Facsimiles  of  the  miniatures  and  ornaments  of  Anglo-Saxon  and 
Irish  manuscripts.  London,  Quaritch,  1868.  Folio. 

WiLPERT,  Joseph.  Die  rdmischen  Mosaiken  und  Malereien  der  kirchlichen  Bauten 
von  IV  bis  XIII  Jahrhundert.  Freiburg  im  Breisgau,  Herder,  1916.  4  vols. 
Folio. 

WoLFFLiN,  Heinrich.  Die  Bamberger  Apokalypse.  Miinchen,  Koniglich  Akademie 
der  Wissenschaften,  1918.  4to. 

ZiMMERMANN,  E.  Heinrich.  Vorkarolingische  Miniaturen.  Berlin,  Deutsches  Verein 
fiir  Kunstwissenschaft,  1916.  8vo  and  4  vols.  Folio. 

ZiMMERMANN,  Max  Geotg.  Oberitalische  Plastik.  Leipzig,  Liebeskind,  1897.  4to. 


ADDRESSES  OF  PHOTOGRAPHERS 


Alinari,  Fratelli.  Amminlstrazione,  Via  Nazionale  8,  Florence,  Italy.  Stores,  Via 
Strozzi,  Florence ;  Via  Condotti  al  Corso  Umberto  I,  Rome ;  3  Via  Calabritto, 
Naples.  The  largest  collection  of  any  of  the  Italian  commercial  houses.  Well 
arranged  catalogues. 

Alonso,  R.  Palencia.  A  small  collection  of  the  city  and  province  of  Palencia. 

Anderson,  D.  7a  Via  Salaria,  Rome.  A  large  collection  of  exceptionally  high 

J/-:;  quality.  Catalogues. 

Antonelli-Matteucci,  Cav.  Liborio,  Via  Piccinni,  24,  Bari.  Collection  of  Apu- 
lian  monuments  made  for  the  Museo  Provincial  of  Bari. 

Les  Archives  Photographiques  d’Art  et  d’Histoire.  i  bis  Rue  de  Valois,  Paris.  A 
consolidation  of  the  old  collections  of  the  Commission  des  Monuments  His- 
toiques.  Service  Photographique  et  Cinematographique  des  Beaux-Arts, 
Neurdein,  F.  Martin  Sabon  etc.,  constituting  almost  a  monopoly  of  photo¬ 
graphs  of  French  monuments. 

Armoni,  Piazza  del  Duomo,  Orvieto. 

Baylac,  L.  R.,  21  rue  Bouquieres,  Toulouse. 

Benvenuti,  Cesare,  Piazza  Superiore  S.  Francesco,  Assisi. 

Brogi,  Via  Tornabuoni,  Florence.  A  collection  of  importance.  Catalogue. 

Byne,  Arthur,  Monte  Esquinza  6,  Madrid.  An  exceedingly  well-selected  collection 
of  Spanish  architecture  and  industrial  arts. 

Carboni,  Cav.,  Direttore  del  Gabinetto  Fotografico  del  Ministero  della  Pubblica 
Istruzione,  Via  in  Miranda,  7,  Rome.  Italian  government  photographs. 

Giraudon,  9  rue  des  Beaux-Arts,  Paris.  Photographs  of  exceptionally  high  quality. 

Gombau,  Venancio,  Calle  de  Prior,  18,  Salamanca,  Spain. 

Kennedy,  Prof.  Clarence,  Department  of  Art,  Smith  College,  Northampton,  Mass. 
Photographs  of  the  highest  quality.  Catalogue. 

Kunsthistorisches  Seminar,  Marburg  (Lahn). 

Lassalle,  C.,  rue  de  I’Etoile  32,  Toulouse. 

Lombardi,  Via  di  Cittd,  Siena,  Italy.  Catalogue. 

Marsal,  M.,  sucesores  de,  Rambla  de  Castelar,  36,  Tarragona. 

Mas,  Rosello  277,  Barcelona.  A  remarkably  well  selected  and  complete  collection  of 
subjects  in  Catalonia  and  Spain. 

Millet,  Prof.  Gabriel,  34  rue  Halle,  Paris.  XIV'.  The  collection  of  the  Ecole  des 
Hautes-Etudes  consists  chiefly  of  Byzantine  subjects. 

Moscioni,  Via  Condotti  76,  Rome.  Collection  includes  many  unusual  subjects. 
The  catalogue  is  unfortunately  of  little  use. 

Poppi,  Pietro,  19  Via  d’Azeglio,  Bologna. 

Remy-Gorget,  Pres  de  la  Gare,  Dijon. 

Roig,  J.,  successor  to  Laurent  y  Lacoste,  Carrera  de  San  Jeronimo,  53,  Madrid. 

SiLVESTRE,  rue  de  Bonnele,  2,  Lyon. 

Sommer,  G.,  e  Figlio,  Piazza  Vittoria,  Naples.  Catalogue. 

Stoedtner,  Dr.  Franz,  Universitatstrasse  3*^,  Berlin  N.  W.  7.  A  large  and  admirably 
selected  collection.  Catalogue. 

Tarabelli,  Via  Torquato  Tasso,  Bergamo.  Catalogue. 

Tilli,  G.,  Via  Mazzini,  Perugia. 

WiNOCio,  Calle  San  Marcelo,  Leon. 


INDEX 


INDEX 

The  light  italic  figures  refer  to  illustrations;  the  light  Roman  figures  refer  to  the 
text  of  Volume  I.  Specially  important  references  in  the  text  are  printed  in  heavy 
type. 


Aachen,  Altar  and  Ambo,  35 ;  Pulpit,  190. 
Aaron,  Ill.  150,  §88. 

Abbeville,  Gospels  called  of  Charlemagne,  46. 
Abbots,  Ill.  jpd;  Begon,  Ill.j<?7;  Leonas,  Ill. 
21Q,  220. 

Abel,  {see  Cain  and  Abel). 

Abia,  Ill.  1512. 

Abraham,  Ill.  i66,§66,§g8,  8yi,  i2og,  1507, 
1508,  /§/j;  With  the  Soul  of  Lazarus,  Ill. 
§66. 

Acceptus,  31f. 

Acerenza,  Cattedrale,  Archivolt,  59;  Rela¬ 
tion  to  Compostela,  194. 

Achthamar,  18,  27,  185,  314. 

Acuto,  132. 

.^dalia.  Relief,  244. 

Adam,  Creation  of.  Ill.  612,  614,  686,  68g; 
Labour  of.  Ill.  334;  and  Eve,  Expulsion 
of.  Ill.  ^52,  316,  675,  1173,  1378,  I37g; 
God  reproves.  Ill.  686,  goi,  1172;  God 
walks  in  the  Garden,  Ill.  1378, 1382;  Shame 
of.  Ill.  gs,  1378;  Story  of.  Ill.  615,  gio, 
1378;  Temptation  of.  Ill.  28,  53,  g3,  g4, 
95,  252, 334, 35S,  420,  6og,  goi,  g56,  957, 
1103,  1106,  1171,  1184,  1365,  1367,  1378, 
1380;  I 38 1. 

Adelelme,  Guillaume,  Bishop,  318. 

Adeodato,  Ill.  igi . 

Admont,  Stiftsbibliothek,  Gebhardsbibel,  21, 
50. 

Adoration,  Ill.  130,  232,  4go,  607,  780,  1188, 
246,  {see  also  Magi) ;  of  the  Lamb,  Ill. 
7220. 

Agnus  Dei,  Ill.  6gg,  g73, 1405. 

Agramunt,  Portal,  western.  Ill.  633,  145. 
Aguero,  Ermita  de  San  Jaime,  Sculptures,  Ill. 

347, 140;  Capitals  of  portal,  Ill.  346. 
“Ainay  Master,”  Ill.  28,  2g. 

Airvault,  6;  Altar-frontal,  Ill.  g64,  207,  304; 
Capital  of  nave.  Ill.  goi,  go2, 304 ;  Capital, 
vaulting,  clerestory  wall.  Ill.  900,-  Elders, 
142;  Spandrel  of  nave  arcade.  Ill.  8g8, 
8gg,  49,  258,  267,  303, 342 ;  Tomb  of  Abbot 
Pierre  de  Saine-Fontaine,  Ill.  90J,  304. 
Aix-en-Provence,  Cathedrale,  Cloister,  Ill. 
7406,  1407,  187,  221,  300;  Cloister,  Col¬ 
umn  of.  Ill.  1408,  111 ;  Relief  in  choir.  Ill. 
^33^,  300. 


Aklepat,  Relation  to  Casale  Monferrato, 
Cordoba  and  San  Baudelio,  186. 

Albi,  Musee  de  I’Archeveche,  Sculptured 
colonnettes.  Ill.  433-433,  198,  221 ;  Stained 
glass,  195. 

Alexander,  Ill.  461. 

Altamira,  Cave,  Paintings,  I4. 

Altar-frontals,  207. 

Amalek,  Battle  against,  Ill.  386,  388,  3gi, 
593-.  .  . 

Amboise,  Pilgrimage  Road,  179. 

Amiens,  Bible,  309 ;  Influence  of  Mateo,  265 ; 
Jamb  sculptures,  266;  Motif  of  “Apostles,” 
192. 

Amsterdam,  Ryksmuseum,  Tympanum,  28. 

Ancona,  Relation  to  Sermon,  326. 

“Androche  Master,”  Ill.  47. 

Angels,  Ill.  7g,  97,  108  log,  112,  137,  138, 
158, 139,  202, 166, 172,  lyg,  igo, 

200,  206,  227,  231,  23g,  274,300,301,302, 

317, 340, 342, 366, 367, 372, 381, 3^4, 383, 

387,388,38g,  402,  424,  430,  431,  433,  430, 
431,  460,  488, 301, 302, 304,303;  311,523, 
528, 32g,  33D  532, 348, 549, 576,  617,  673, 
677,  686,  688,  6g4,  6g3,  714,  727,  734,  737, 
741,  764,  766,  777,  778,  780,  7gg,  800,  802, 
80^,  804,  837,  838,  832,  g20,  g2g,  g3o,  g66, 
969,  gyi,  g72,  gj3,  g74,  977,  975,  g84,  gg4, 
gg7-ioo4,  1016,  1017,  1043,  I04g,  1030, 
io3g,  1070,  7722,  1123,  1130,  1131,  II44-, 
1168,  1207,  i2og,  1231,  1273,  1406,  1460, 
1461,  1474-1476,  i4go,  74(42,  I4g8,  i4gg, 
1302,  1322-1324,  30;  holding  an  Aureole, 
30,  74f.;  guarding  Gates  of  Paradise,  III. 
1174;  Guardians  of  Gift,  Ill.  1207;  Rebel¬ 
lious,  Fall  of.  Ill.  1083, 13g4-i3g6. 

Angers,  Bible  of  St.-Aubin,  309;  Cathedrale, 
Lintel,  Influence  of  Chartres,  135 ;  Portal, 
western.  Ill.  1302,  1303;  Tympanum, 
western.  Ill.  1301,  I40,  341  ;  Eglise  du 
Ronceray,  5;  Capital,  V\.g22,  25:  Musee 
Archeologique,  Capital,  from  Eglise  du 
Ronceray,  Ill.  g22,  25 ;  Ivory,  XI-XII 
century,  190:  Prefecture,  Portal  of  St.- 
Aubin,  Ill.  g63-g72,  312;  Sculptures  of 
St.-Aubin,  Ill.  io6g,  1070, 341 :  St.-Martin, 
Vault  sculptures,  258. 

Angouleme,  Cathedrale,  Combat  of  cavaliers 


INDEX 


362 


compared  with  Bari  and  Modena, 
Fagade  sculptures,  Ill.  ^2^-940;  4,  51,  63, 
269,  274.  304,  305,  308;  31 1,  312,  315, 
320f.,  321,  328;  Medallions,  compared 
with  Achthamar,  18;  Portal,  lunettes  com¬ 
pared  with  St.-Gilles  facade,  273f.;  Rela¬ 
tion  to  Bayeux  “tapestry,”  Modena,  and 
Bari,  1 83 ;  Relation  to  Saintes,  Ste.-Marie- 
des-Dames,  331;  Sculptures,  (in  general), 
189,  190,  295,  303  f.,  341 :  Museum,  Relief 
from  lunette,  310. 

■“Angouleme  Master,”  250,  273,  295. 

Aniane,  Pilgrimage  Road,  1 80. 

Annunciation,  {see  Virgin  and  Zacharias). 

Anseramo,  Ill.  260. 

Anzy-Le-Duc,  i2of.;  Capital  of  nave.  Ill. 
17-23,  329 :  Priory,  Portal,  {see  Paray-le- 
Monial),  Ill.  95-99,  65,  122,  130;  Tym¬ 
panum,  Ill.  g8,  99;  Portal,  western.  Ill. 
24,  g6,  97,  141,  143,  259-260;  Tympanum, 
western.  Ill.  97. 

Aosta,  San  Orso,  Cloister,  4,  29,  148,  187. 

Apocalypse,  Horsemen  of.  Ill.  2'J4,  iigs, 
I4ig.  Scenes  from.  Ill.  1417,  21.  Vision, 
Ill.  gi6,  gij. 

Apostles,  Ill.  2,  4,  //,  13, 103, 108,  log,  1/3, 
1 17.  123, 124, 123, 163, 163,  igo,  227,  228, 
320, 323, 326, 332, 381, 382, 383,  403,  427, 
428,  42g,  43(>-443.  4^0,  490,  636,  63g,  673- 
(^77^  ^^5,  688,  6go,  711,  716,  722,  723,  726, 
729,  764,  765,  7^S,  7^2,  784,  787,  811, 
812,  813,  816,  818,  833,  836,  844, 843,  846, 
848,  84g,  837,  860,  877, 878, 8g4,  8g6,  go6, 
931-938,  940,  944,  945,  952-955,  964,  988, 
gg3,  gg6,  gg7, 1022-1024, 1026, 1028, 1072, 
1132,  2133,  1140,  1231,  1232,  1236,  1231, 
1238,  i23g,  1312,  1313, 1314,  1370,  I3g7, 
2398,  23gg,  2422,  i4g2,  1314, 1324,  7,  20, 

51,54,  192. 

April,  Hi.  iog8. 

Aquarius,  Ill.  2438. 

Arbas,  Pilgrimage  Road,  179. 

Arcetri,  San  Leonardo,  Pulpit,  HI.  226,  326. 

Archangels,  Ill.  59^,  g4.6. 

Arches,  Figures  standing  under,  30;  Horse¬ 
shoe,  38 ;  Pointed,  98 ;  Reliefs  placed  under, 
45f. ;  Trefoiled,  38;  Trilobed,  227,  250. 

Arezzo,  Museum,  Byzantine  box,  X  century, 
189.  Pieve,  Facade,  222. 

Argenton-Chateau,  Portal,  western.  Ill.  g87- 
99^,  333- 

Ark,  of  the  Lord,  Ill.  flop, 

Arles,  Musee  Lapidaire,  Fragments,  Ill.  316, 
20:  St.-Trophime,  Cloisters,  187;  Capital 
of,  HI.  2360,  294;  Holy-water  basin  in.  Ill. 
2363,  2364:  Pier  of,  Ill.  1344-/362,  57,  294, 
297,  298,  300;  Reliefs  of.  Ill.  2361,  2363: 
Fagade,  \\\,  I366-I36g,  2374-1377,  8,  134, 
252,  253,  254,  256,  258,  295,  298,  336; 


Frieze  of.  Ill.  1373,  295,  336;  Jam  sculp¬ 
tures,  262;  Pilgrimage  Road,  180,  194; 
Portal,  western.  Ill.  2370-1373,  70,  140, 
160,  165,  242,  294,  297;  Sculptures,  Rela¬ 
tion  to  Achthamar,  18;  to  Autun  capital, 
Armentia,  Beaucaire,  Byzantine  influence, 
Estella,  Guglielmo’s  work,  Moissac  tym¬ 
panum,  St.-Gilles,  Santo  Domingo  de 
Silos,  Toulouse,  298-299 :  School  of  Pro¬ 
vence,  181. 

Arles-sur-Tech,  Fragments  of  Tomb  of  Guil¬ 
laume  Guacelme,  Ill.  627,  iii,  160;  Tym¬ 
panum,  western.  Ill.  318, 19f.,  33,  72,  303. 

Armenia,  {see  Achthamar). 

Armentia,  San  Andres,  Pilgrimage  Road, 
179;  Relation  to  Santiago  de  Compostela, 
181 ;  to  Arles,  St.-Trophime,  299;  Cupola, 
Corbel,  Ill.  767,  256f. ;  Relief  in  porch, 
southern,  HI.  761-764,  192,  256f. ;  Tym¬ 
panum  of  porch,  southern.  Ill.  763,  766, 
^33- 

Arts,  of  Architecture  and  Miniature -paint¬ 
ing,  Ill.  9,  78,  136 ;  I.iberal,  Ill.  ill  I. 

Ascension,  {see  Christ). 

Aspic,  Ill.  127, 172. 

Ass,  with  a  Book,  HI.  24. 

Assumption,  {see  Virgin). 

Astorga,  San  Salvador,  Pilgrimage  Road,  175, 
179. 

Aubeterre,  St.-Jacques,  Fagade,  western.  Ill. 
7097-/099,332. 

Audebert,  Giraud,  1061,  164. 

August,  Ill.  380,  gg3,  iog6. 

Aulnay,  Pilgrimage  Road,  179;  Capitals, 
Ill.  g82,  104,  33if. ;  St.-Pierre,  Facade, 
western,  111.955,  g86,  23^^-,  333;  Portal, 
southern.  Ill.  979,  143,  252,  33if. ;  Portal, 
western,  Ill.  g84,  g83,  331!.,  333 ;  Window, 
eastern,  HI.  g8i,  24,  331!. ;  Window,  south¬ 
ern  transept,  HI.  95o,  33 if.,  333  :  School  of 
the  West,  1 81. 

Autry-Issard,  Portal,  western.  Lintel,  Ill. 
2141, 132  f.,  236. 

Autun,  Cathedrale,  79,  112f. :  Capital,  now 
in  Museum,  Ill.  71,  72;  of  nave.  Ill.  <57-70, 
73,  75-79,  4,  47.  161,  242;  of  transept,  HI. 
74:  Capitals,  compared  with  Arles,  St.- 
Trophime,  298;  compared  with  Moutier- 
St.-Jean,  115;  compared  with  Saulieu,  1 1 5 ; 
compared  with  Vezelay,  9of.,  113:  Influ¬ 
ence  on  Sangiiesa,  254;  Pilgrimage  Road, 
175;  Sculptures  compared  with  Toulouse, 
St.-Etienne,  158;  Tomb  of  St.  Lazare,  Ill. 
I47-I4.g,  85,  117,  131;  Tympanum,  west¬ 
ern,  Ill.  80, 81,  120,  121,  162,  233,  234,  242, 
257,  279,  297,  317 ;  Relation  to  Cluny,  109 ; 
Dijon,  1 17;  Vezelay,  112;  Gudohinus  Gos¬ 
pel,  Miniature,  325 ;  Musee  Lapidaire, 
Tomb  of  St.  Lazare,  Ill.  I47-J4g,  1 17,  131- 


INDEX 


Auvergne,  Ornamental  sculpture,  XII  cen¬ 
tury,  1 6. 

Avallon,  St.-Lazare,  Portal,  Central,  Ill.  13J- 
ijg,  130,  143,  161 ;  Southern,  Ill.  140, 141, 
130;  Influence  of  Chartres,  130;  Relation 
to  Oloron-Ste.-Marie,  259.  Tympanum, 
southern.  Ill.  140, 130. 

Avarice,  Ill.  jyo,  1180, 1182. 

Avenas,  Altar,  West  front.  Ill.  //-/j;  North 
face.  Ill.  14;  South  face.  Ill.  /J;  General 
references,  118,  120;  Relation  to  Charlieu, 
119 ;  Cluny,  118 ;  V6zelay,  118. 

Aversa,  Relation  to  Compostela,  194;  Rib 
vaults,  186. 

Avignon,  Musee  Calvet,  Capital,  Ill.  J341, 
165,  243;  Capital,  from  Notre-Dame-des- 
Doms,  243 ;  Capital  of  cloister,  now  in 
Carnbridge,  Mass.,  Ill.  1342,  300 ; 

Cloisters,  187,  222;  Relation  to  Vienne, 
St.-Andre-le-Bas,  165;  Episcopal  Throne, 

1X1.1339,1340,1x2,. 

Avila,  Bible,  209  :  San  Vicente,  Portal,  south¬ 
ern,  Ill.  841-843,  264 ;  Portal,  western.  Ill. 
844-849,  161,  264;  Tomb  of  the  Saint,  Ill. 
850,  851,  47. 

Azay-le-Rideau,  Fagade,  western.  Reliefs,  Ill. 
896, 23, 46!. 

Babylon,  Ill.  2j6,  904. 

Bages,  Cloisters,  187. 

Balaam,  Ill.  36,  216, 523;  and  the  Angel,  Ill. 
p5- 

Bale,  {see  Basel). 

Bamberg,  21,  191 ;  Apocalypse,  274,  309; 
Archivolts,  152;  Hofbibliotek,  Bible,  35; 
Influence  of  Mateo,  264;  Pilgrimage  Road, 
187;  Sculpture  in  Choir-screen,  Influence 
on  Reims,  266. 

Barbedelo,  Lintel,  236. 

Barcelona,  Catedral,  Portal,  northern,  Ill. 
635,  636;  Museum,  Catalan  Antependium, 
53,  208 ;  San  Pablo  al  Campo,  Tympanum, 
western.  Ill.  330,  310;  Relation  to  Mague- 
lonne,  269. 

Barga,  Pulpit,  Ill.  246. 

Bari,  Duomo,  Relation  to  Toulouse,  St.- 
Etienne,  241;  Exultet  Roll,  313  ;  Museo, 
Cast  of  Trani  Gabriel,  Ill.  203;  Pilgrimage 
Road,  182 ;  San  Niccola,  1 5, 59f. ;  Architec¬ 
ture  compared  with  Modena,  Cattedrale, 
67;  Capital  of  Crypt,  Ill.  131,  67f.,  87; 
Episcopal  Throne,  Ill.  132,  133,  134,  133, 
15,  51  j  59f. ;  Later  Portions,  Relation  to 
Toulouse,  St.-Etienne,  Capitals,  241 ;  Porta 
dei  Leoni,  Ill.  136, 62f. ;  Relation  to  Angou- 
leme,  Bayeux  “tapestry,”  Modena,  183; 
Portal,  western.  III.  200, 144,  145. 

Barletta,  Collegiata,  Portal,  northern,  (west 
fagade)  Ill.  IJJ;  Portal,  southern,  (west 


363 

fagade)  Ill.  iy6 :  San  Andrea,  Portal,  west¬ 
ern,  Ill.  231,  232,  219;  San  Sepolcro,  Influ¬ 
ence  of  Jerusalem,  Church  of  the  Holy 
Sepulchre,  185;  Statue,  bronze,  colossal, 

98- 

Basel,  Altar-frontal,  now  in  Paris,  Musee 
Cluny,  208 ;  Galluspforte,  133 ;  Tympanum 
of,  249;  Munster,  Influence  of  Mateo’s 
work  at  Santiago  de  Compostela,  265 : 
Universitatsbibliotek,  Fulda  Miniature, 
21 ;  St.-Gallen  Manuscript,  21. 

Basle,  {see  Basel). 

Basilisk,  Ill.  130, 172. 

“Bathsheba  Master,”  Ill.  44,  113,  138. 

Bawit,  Fresco,  313;  Frescos  of  Horsemen, 
188, 190, 191 ;  Wooden  consoles  {see  Cairo), 
46,  47- 

Bayeux,  Cathedrale,  Crypt,  5 ;  Tapestry,’ 
50,  51,  65,  66,  67;  Relation  to  Angouleme, 
Modena,  (Porta  della  Pescheria),  Bari, 
(San  Niccola,  Porta  dei  Leoni),  183. 

Bayonne,  Pilgrimage  Road,  179. 

Bazas,  Pilgrimage  Road,  1 80 ;  St.-Vivien,  319. 

Bear,  Ill.  1263. 

Beatitudes,  The,  Ill.  279,  631-633,  38f.,  45. 

Beaucaire,Notre-Dame-des-Pommiers,Frieze, 
now  in  south  facade,  Ill.  1292-1298, 
25,  237,.  238,  257,_  271f.,  273, _  280,  297, 
336;  Frieze,  Relation  to  St.-Gilles  frieze, 
280f.,  281,  282;  Relation  to  St. -Hilaire 
Area,  271 :  Relation  to  Santiago  de  Com¬ 
postela,  271 ;  Reliefs,  (lost),  Relation  to 
Arles,  St.-Trophime,  299;  Tympanum,  Ill. 
1299, 246f 250, 272f 301 , 3 1 1 , 33 2 Rela¬ 
tion  to  St.-Gilles,  277f.,  278 ;  Relation  to 
Santiago  de  Compostela,  272. 

Beaulieu,  Influence  on  St.-Denis,  224;  Lintel, 
southern.  Ill.  414,  413;  Pilgrimage  Road, 
175,  180;  Porch,  southern;  Ill.  419, 
420;  Portal,  southern,  Ill.  416,  417,  418, 
218;  Tympanum,  southern.  Ill.  409-413, 
I34>  233,  234,  241.  _ 

Beaulieu-les-Loches,  Pilgrimage  Road,  179. 

Beauvais,  Basse-Oeuvre,  22,  23  ;  St.-Etienne, 
Window,  northern.  Ill.  1423,  1424,  164, 
225;  Portal,  western.  Ill.  1411:  Museum, 
Sculptured  colonnette,  (from  St.-Quentin- 
les-Beauvais),  Ill.  1431-1433,  221,  222, 
225 ;  Sculptured  column,  222. 

Bellefontaine,  3,  10,  ii. 

Benedetto,  157,  261,  290. 

Benedictine  Art,  87,  96;  Style,  55. 

Benevento,  Santa  Sofia,  Capitals,  65 ;  Tym¬ 
panum,  Ill.  233. 

Benevivere,  Pilgrimage  Road_,  175. 

Bergamo,  Santa  Maria  Maggiore,  Sculptures 
representing  the  making  of  capitals,  102. 

Berlin,  Kaiser  Friederich  Museum,  Book- 
cover,  45 ;  Book-cover,  called  Franconian. 


INDEX 


364 

76 ;  Bone  Box,  24 ;  Byzantine  ivory,  46, 
325 ;  Byzantine  plaque  of  steatite,  48 ; 
Ivory  triptych,  (XI  century),  189;  Sculp¬ 
ture,  28 :  Staatsbibliotek,  Probianus-Dip- 
tychon,  325. 

Bernay,  Abbey,  Pilgrimage  Road,  175. 
Besalu,  Cloister,  Tympanum,  Ill.  602,  140. 
Besangon,  Gospels,  99,  100, 

Betanzos,  Santa  Maria  del  Azoque,  Sculp¬ 
tures  of  facade.  Ill.  8gj;  Tympanum,  Ill. 
8g2:  Santiago,  Portal,  western,  Ill.  8g4, 
893,192. 

Bethlehem,  Church  of  the  Nativity,  Mosaics, 
21. 

Bewcastle,  Cross,  7,  16,  21,  22. 

Beziers,  Pilgrimage  Road,  179,  195. 

Bharhut,  Pillar,  now  in  Calcutta  Museum, 
221. 

Bianya,  Ramon  de.  Ill.  623-623. 

Biduino,  Ill.  223,  224. 

“  Bifora  Master,”  Ill.  42,  43. 

Bigarelli,  Guido,  da  Como,  Ill.  234. 

Bishops,  Ill.  124,  623,  683,  886,  1063,  io6’3, 
1068,  1234, 1237. 

Bitonto,  Cattedrale,  1 5 ;  Pulpit,  Ill.  244, 243; 

Tympanum,  Ill.  232, 233, 126. 

Bjeresjb,  Frescos  in  ceiling,  152. 

Blazimont,  Pilgrimage  Road,  175,  180: 
Portal,  western.  Ill.  1041-1044,  317,  334: 
School  of  the  West,  181, 

Blessing,  The  Stolen,  Ill.  J7. 

Blois,  Pilgrimage  Road,  179. 

Bobbio,  Tomb  of  St.  Cumiano,  14. 
Bodhisattva,  57. 

Bois-Ste. -Marie,  Tympanum,  southern.  Ill. 
142, 130,  259. 

Bologna,  Casket,  (XI  century),  190;  Museo 
Civico,  Ivory,  204 :  San  Stefano,  Cloisters, 
187;  Influence  of  Jerusalem,  Church  of  the 
Holy  Sepulchre,  185. 

Bomiaco,  San  Pellegrino,  Frescos,  326. 
Bonnano, 293. 

Book  of  Kells,  {see  Dublin). 

Bordeaux,  Pilgrimage  Road,  179:  Ste.-Croix, 
Portal,  western.  Ill.  920,  143,  341 ;  Sculp¬ 
tures  of  fafade.  Ill.  921,  34I ;  Voussures, 
107. 

Border  Ornaments,  150,  151,  163,  288. 

Borgo  San  Donnino,  Portal,  northern,  4, 141 ; 
Relation  to  St.-Jouin-de-Marne,  315 ;  Re¬ 
lief,  290. 

Boston,  Fenway  Court,  Lions,  299;  Museum 
of  Fine  Arts,  Capital  from  St.-Pons,  Ill. 
1263. 

Bourg-Argental,  Halos,  star-inscribed,  152; 
Portal,  western.  Ill.  ii 49-1132, 144, 145f.; 
Tympanum,  western.  III.  1130,  133,  140. 
Bourges,  Influence  of  Cluny  tympanum 
through  Chartres,  140;  Lintel,  influence  of 


Chartres,  135 ;  Musee  Berry,  Statues,  (from 
St.-Benoit-du-Sault),  Ill.  1234, 1233;  Tym¬ 
panum  (from  St.-Pierre-le-Puellier),  Ill. 
1262;  Portals,  Transept,  compared  with 
Angouleme,  305 ;  St.-Pierre-le-Puellier, 
Tympanum,  now  in  Musee  Berry,  Ill. 
1262;  St.-Ursin,  Tympanum,  Ill.  1263. 

Bozouls,  Pilgrimage  Road,  1 86. 

Bradulus,  Resurrection  of.  Ill.  1197, 1198. 

Brescia,  Museum,  Ivory  Box,  (IV  century), 

313- 

Briare,  Fragment  of  Altar-frontal,  now  at 
Orleans,  Musee  Historique,  Ill.  1434,  207. 

Brindisi,  San  Benedetto,  Rib  vaults,  Lom¬ 
bard  influence,  139,  186;  Santa  Lucia, 
Crypt,  Ill.  178. 

Brioude,  Pilgrimage  Road,  180;  St.-Julien, 
Capital  of  nave.  Ill.  1264. 

Brive,  Musee  Massenat,  Fragment  of  Relief, 
(from  St.-Martin),  Ill.  ?5?,  200,  257: 

St.-Martin,  Capitals,  Ill.  333-337,  286; 
Fragment  of  Relief,  now  in  Musee  Mas¬ 
senat,  Ill.  200,  257. 

Broad-Leaved  Capitals,  {see  Capitals). 

Brunus,  Ill.  1302,  274f.,  275-278,  287,  291, 
294,  296,  297. 

Brussels,  Museum,  Book-cover,  ivory,  Ada 
group,  72;  Font,  15. 

Bryn  Athyn,  Penn.  Collection  of  Mr.  Ray¬ 
mond  Pitcairn,  Capital  (from  Cuxa),  ill. 
337a;  Capital  (from  St.-Guilhem-le-De- 
sert).  Ill.  1403. 

Buonamico,  Ill.  181. 

Burgfelden,  232. 

Burgos,  Catedral,  Pilgrimage  Road,  175, 179, 
195:  Museum,  Altar-frontal,  (from  Santo 
Domingo  de  Silos),  47, 208 ;  Moorish  Boxes, 
40;  Reliquary,  (from  Santo  Domingo  de 
Silos),  251 :  Santa  Colomba,  Pilgrimage 
Road,  175. 

Burgundy,  Influence  of,  240,  249,  262,  279, 
333. 

Burial,  Ill.  1262. 

Bury,  Sculpture,  225,  258. 

Bury-St.-Edmunds,  Manuscript,  (first  half 
XII  century)  56 ;  Miniatures,  97. 

Byzantine  Influence,  1 84 ;  Renaissance  ,)of 
X  century,  18. 

Caen,  St.-Etienne-le-Vieux,  195;  Relief  in 
Choir,  Ill.  1093a;  St.-Nicolas,  5,  15.  b 

Cagliari,  Cattedrale,  Ambo,  Ill.  j86, 187, 160, 
202,  293,  294 ;  Pulpit,  8 ;  Sculptures  from 
Pisa  not  in  Ambo,  Ill.  188,  202,  293. 

Cahors,  Cathedrale,  Pilgrimage  Road,  180, 
181 ;  Portal,  northern.  Ill.  421,  164,  250; 
Tympanum,  northern.  Ill.  422-429,  134, 
156,  164,250,  252,  264. 

Cain,  Death  of.  Ill.  33;  and  Abel,  Ill.  786, 


INDEX 


36s 


g4T,  gSz,  1324,  1325;  Offerings  of,  Ill.  66, 
^325 >  ^379^  ^3^3-,  273;  Murder  of  Abel, 
Ill.  1379,  273. 

Cairo,  Museum,  Bone-carvings,  III-IV  cen¬ 
turies,  21;  Coptic  Relief,  46;  Portal  of 
Daschlut,  14I ;  Roman  Relief,  21 ;  Wooden 
Consoles,  (from  Bawit),  46,  47;  Wooden 
Panels,  46 :  Old,  Kasr-es-Scham’a,  1 89 ; 
Mosque  of  Ibn  Tulun,  98. 

Calcutta,  Museum,  Pillar,  (from  Bharhut), 
221. 

Calf,  Golden,  Ill.  39. 

Callixtus  II,  308. 

Calvenzano,  Archivolt,  I44;  Proto-voussure 
sculptures,  328. 

Cambridge,  England,  Fitzwilliam  Museum, 
Ivories,  28,  204;  Influence  of  Jerusalem, 
Church  of  the  Holy  Sepulchre,  185. 

Cambridge,  Mass.,  Fogg  Museum,  Capitals, 
(from  Cloister  of  Notre-Dame-des-Doms, 
Avignon),  Ill.,  1342,  1343,  300;  (from 
Mohtier-St.-Jean,  Ill.  62-66, 91, 313 ;  (from 
St.-Pons),  Ill.  1263, 1266, 1270,  1271,  337. 

Cana,  Feast  at.  Ill.  607. 

Canopies,  45f.,  156,  164,  166,  245,  252,  272f. 

Canosa,  Mausoleum  of  Bohemond,  Bronze 
Doors  of  Rogerius,  269 ;  Pilgrimage  Road, 
1 86 ;  Pulpit,  7,  9, 31f . 

Capitals,  carved  before  being  placed,  loif. ; 
broad-leaved,  194, 306 ;  crocheted,  194, 306. 

Capua,  Mosaics,  (destroyed),  XI  century, 
325;  San  Marcello,  Portal,  southern.  Ill. 
166,  55. 

Carcassonne,  Pilgrimage  Road,  179,  195; 
St.-Michel,  Stained  glass,  195;  St.-Na- 
zaire.  Pilgrimage  Road,  186. 

Carennac,  Pilgrimage  Road,  180;  Tympa¬ 
num,  western,  111.381-383, 248f.,  250,  251. 

Carpentras,  Museum,  Plaque,  22 ;  Relation  to 
Santiago  de  Compostela,  181. 

Carriere-St.-Denis,  Altar-frontal,  now  in 
Paris,  Louvre,  Ill.  1483,  i486,  1 64. 

Carridn  de  los  Condes,  Elders  in  Voussures, 
radiating,  143 ;  Pilgrimage  Road,  175,  179 ; 
Relation  to  Moarves,  180;  Santa  Maria, 
Portal,  western,  Ill.  773,  330;  Relief  south 
of  portal.  Ill.  774,  192;  Santiago,  Frieze  of 
fagade.  Ill.  722-726,  164,  251,  256,  258, 
262, 336 ;  Portal,  western.  Ill.  727. 

Caryatids,  Ill.  24,  233,  236.  {See  Supporting 
Figures) . 

Casale  Monferrato,  Relation  to  Cordoba,  San 
Baudelio  and  Aklepat,  Armenia,  186. 

Casques,  Conical,  61, 

Castel  S.  Elia,  Frescos,  108,  142. 

Castelvieil,  Pilgrimage  Road,  180;  Portal, 
southern.  Ill.  926-928, 341. 

Cavaliers,  jousting,  63,  64. 

Caylus,  Stained  glass,  196. 


Cefalu,  Mosaics  XII  century,  314. 

Centaur,  Ill.  37,  216. 

Chadennac,  Facade,  Ill.  1037-1040, 4;PoTta\, 
Ill.  1034-1036,  4,  242,  316,  317,  318,  333, 
334,  335,  340, 

Chalais,  Fagade,  Ill.  1087-1089,  342. 

ChHons-sur-Marne,  Notre-Dame,  Fragment 
of  pier,  now  in  Paris,  Louvre,  Ill.  1487, 221 ; 
Influence  of  Cluny  tympanum,  through 
Chartres,  140. 

Chamalieres,  Fragment  of  Tomb,  Ill.  1137; 
Holy-water  basin.  Ill.  1133-1136,  219, 
225f. ;  Lombard  sculpture,  183. 

Chambon,  Lintel,  western.  Ill.  1230,  15,  236. 

Champagne,  Lintel,  236;  Sculpture,  106; 
Tympanum,  Ill.  1186,  237, 301 . 

Champdeniers,  {see  Champniers). 

Champniers,  Derivative  of  Cluny  tympanum, 
140;  Pilgrimage  Road,  179. 

Chanson  de  Jeste,  Scene  from,  Ill.  136. 

Charity,  Ill.  jpd,  1152, 1231;  vs.  Avarice,  Ill. 
1180. 

Charlieu,  Inner  porch,  71f. ;  Inner  portal, 
1 61;  Inner  tympanum.  Ill.  4,  4,  30;  57, 
70,  107,  120,  132,  133,  134,  303,  304,  316; 
Outer  portal.  Ill.  108,  109,  124;  Outer 
lintel.  Ill.  108,  121,  164,  252;  Outer  tym¬ 
panum,  Ill.  108,  J09,  124,  164,  252;  Outer 
portal,  western  window.  Ill.  no,  100,  124, 
164,  252:  Relief  in  Cloister,  Ill.  i,  22,  29; 
from  Refectory,  Ill.  16,  119 ;  compared 
with  Avenas,  119;  relation  to  Cluny,  119. 

Charroux,  6 ;  Influence  of  Jerusalem,  Church 
of  the  Holy  Sepulchre,  185. 

Chartres,  Cathedrale,  Adossed  statues,  In¬ 
fluence  of  St.-Denis,  289;  “Apostles  Mo¬ 
tif,”  192;  Beau  Dieu,  Influence  of  Mateo, 
265 ;  Burgundian  influence  diffused  through, 
162;  “Elders  Motif,”  143;  Fagade,  west, 
Relation  to  St.-Gilles,  285f . ;  Head  master, 
Influence  of,  123,  124;  Jamb  sculptures, 
242,  254,  266;  Portal,  north  transept,  253  ; 
western,  220;  Master  of  Etampes,  163; 
Relation  to  Angouleme,  305 ;  Sculptures, 
Relation  to :  Achthamar,  1 8 ;  Armentia,  257, 
258;  Avallon,  130;  Burgundian  lintel,  134; 
Cahors  tympanum,  250;  Carrion  de  los 
Condes,  252;  Cluny  tympanum,  140; 
Etampes,  164;  La  Charite-sur-Loire,  125; 
Martel,  250;  Montmorillon,  125;  Parthe- 
nay,  335 ;  School  of  the  West,  340 ;  Souillac, 
St.-Martin,  250;  Toulouse,  relief,  217;  La 
Daurade,  jamb  sculptures  of  Chapter- 
House,  243 ;  St.-Etienne,  jamb  sculptures 
from  Chapter-House,  241 ;  Tympanum, 
northern,  141 ;  southern,  246;  Relation  to 
Marseille,  Cathedrale  Ancienne,  Altar, 
267  ;  Musee  Archeologique,  Ill.  1304. 

Chastity,  Ill.  991. 


INDEX 


366 

Chateaudun,  La  Madeleine,  Fagade,  north¬ 
ern,  Ill.  7^5-7^27,  143,  164;  Portal, 
southern.  Ill.  1428-14^0. 

Chateauneuf,  Portal,  southern.  Ill.  2,  77,  133. 

Chateauneuf-sur-Charente,  Fagade,  western. 
Ill.  1008-1010,  188;  Portal,  western.  Ill. 
97J>34i- 

Chatsworth,  Library  of  the  Duke  of  Devon¬ 
shire,  Benedictional  of  St.  Aethelwold,  45, 
48,75,99,  III,  112,  126,  269,313. 

Chauvigny,  St.-Pierre,  Capital  of  Ambula¬ 
tory,  Ill.  904,  90s,  147- 

Cherubim,  Ill.  700,  707,  29/,  946,  1159. 

Chichester,  Cathedral,  Reliefs,  55. 

Children  resuscitated,  Ill.  1521, 1522. 

Chinese  statues.  Folds  of  drapery,  30. 

Chinon,  St.-Mesme,  Relief  in  ancient  facade, 
I11.<?P7,23,  47. 

Chissey,  Tympanum,  western.  Ill.  I2'4’/. 

Chludoff,  Psalter,  189. 

Christ,  Ill.  770,  124,  125,  133,  163, 132, 173, 
250,  2S3,  274,355,384,387,  417,  425,  430, 
458,  487, 549, 550, 585, 586, 592,  618,  676, 
71 1,  716,  725,  728,  764,  844,  847,  860,  861, 
871,  872,  894,  896,  907,  946,  986,  989,  997, 
1023,  1072,  1090,  1130,  1139,  1142,  1251, 
1254,  1277,  1279,  1280,  1397,  1412,  1504, 
1519,  1520,  27,  71,  72,  73,  1 1 8,  1 19,  214, 
260,  262 ;  Ascension,  Ill.  50,  88,  96,  104, 
105, 107,  247,308,309,310,  422,  467,  672, 
1025,  1026,  1027,  1028,  1246,  1247,  1276, 
1353^  14(^0,  1462,  47  75,  134;  Baptism  of. 
Ill.  187,  248,  503,  608,  1100,  1161,  1248, 
1485;  Betrayal  of,  l\\.  330,  61 1,  680,  875, 
1080,  1105,  1295,  1296,  1319,  1320,  1361; 
Carrying  the  Cross,  Ill.  1204,  1212,  1298; 
Crowning  with  Thorns,  Ill.  680,  25  ;  Cruci¬ 
fixion,  111.3-3-0,579,  630,  631,  654,  655,  660, 
665,  703,  7^0,  875,  897,  1107,  1147,  1186, 
1230,  1274,  1300,1385,1391;  Deposition, 
Ill.  157, 197,  249,  461,  470,  629,  669,  702; 
Entombment,  IlL  670,  810,  1507;  Entry 
into  Jerusalem,  Ill.  22^,  295,542,  662,  875, 
922,  1059,  1^03,  1360,  1387,  1388,  1389; 
Preparations  for  Entry  into  Jerusalem,  Ill. 
1387;  Flagellation,  Ill.  150,  680,  1296, 
1297,  1321,  1322,  204;  Flight  into  Egypt, 
III.  54,  71,  142,  150,  229,  372,  373,  458, 
658,  888;  Giving  the  Keys  to  St.  Peter,  Ill. 
133,  190,  228,  788;  Harrowing  of  Hell,  111. 
^50,  157,  232,  2^3,  294,  353,  761 ;  heals 
Blind  Man  and  Paralytic,  Ill.  663;  heals 
Leper,  III.  718;  Nativity,  Ill.  51, 121,  122, 
144,  150, 186,  229,  246,  537,  658,  795,  960, 
962,  1072a,  1077,  1149,  1150,  1166,  1188, 
1233, 1460,^21-  Pentecost,  III.  48,  48a,  49, 
402,  403,  466,  073;  before  Pilate,  Ill.  J081, 
1296,  1321,  2<:;  Precursors  of.  Ill.  1460; 
Presentation,  Ill.  14, 119, 150, 187, 232,372, 


664,  792,  888,  1102,  1 1 61 ;  Resurrection, 
Ill.  464;  and  St.  Joseph,  Ill.  1416;  Last 
Supper,  Ill.  93,  94,  no,  in,  136, 174, 194, 
199,  260,  331,  470,  543,  661,  728,  875, 
1079,  1104,  1105,  1107,  1136,  1148,  1185, 
1214,  121 4a,  1292-1295,  1318,  1361,  116, 
280f. ;  taken  captive.  Ill.  85,  198,  355 > 
Temple,  Ill.  1416;  Temptation,  Ill.  336, 
677-679;  Transfiguration,  Ill.  no,  187, 
292,  712,  1201-1203,  269;  walking  on  the 
Water,  Ill.  788;  washing  St.  Peter’s  Feet, 
Ill.  70, 1079, 1205, 1292, 1293, 1361,  25. 

Chronology,  Romanesque,  3. 

Chur,  222. 

Church,  The,  Ill.  1128,  63. 

Citta  di  Castello,  Altar-frontal,  Relation  to 
Toulouse,  St.-Sernin,  208. 

Ciudad  Rodrigo,  Catedral,  Portal,  southern. 
Ill.  871,  872;  Portal,  western.  Ill.  876,  877, 
878,  264;  Relation  to  Santiago  de  Com¬ 
postela,  1 8 1 ;  Relief  in  lunette  near  southern 
portal.  Ill.  874;  Sculpture  of  vaulting.  Ill. 
873,  258;  Tympanum,  western.  Ill.  875. 

Cividale,  Paliotto  of  Pemmore,  30,  207 ;  Pax 
of  Duca  Orso,  28  ;  Sculptures,  16. 

Civray,  Pilgrimage  Road,  179;  St.-Nicolas, 
Facade,  western.  Ill.  1122-1131,  254,  257, 
341-342;  Portal,  western.  Ill.  1130;  Vous- 
sures,  107. 

Classic  influence,  in  Provengal  School,  270. 

Clermont-Ferrand,  Pilgrimage  Road,  180, 
193  ;  Relief  now  in  house,  rue  desGras,  Ill. 
1205,  236  :  School  of  Auvergne,  181  :  Notre- 
Dame-du-Port,  234f.;  Capital  of  Amlsu- 
latory.  Ill.  1167-1183,  51,  93,  149;  Capital 
of  southern  side  aisle.  Ill.  11 84,  50 ;  Capital 
of  south  transept,  exterior.  Ill.  1165;  Lin¬ 
tel,  southern.  Ill.  1160,  1161;  Reliefs  near 
southern  portal.  Ill.  1162-1164,  1166,  218, 
326;  Tympanum,  Ill.  775<?,  1159,  273. 

Cloister,  Twin  columns,  186. 

Cluny,  Affiliations  along  pilgrimage  road, 
175:  Capitals,  Ill.  5-70,  4,  52,  53,  77f., 
135,  136,  145,  149,. 276,  303,  .316;  from 
nave,  107f.  ;  on  exteriorof  absidial  chapels, 
71;  Columns,  Ambulatory,  226;  Capitals, 
relation  to  Santo  Domingo  de  Silos,  96; 
to  Vezelay,  91f.;  inspired  by  Winchester, 
manuscript,  98f. ;  Construction  of,  influ¬ 
ence  of  Suger,  Abbot,  224 ;  Downfall  of, 
222  :  Musee  Ochier,  Fragment,  Ill.  27,  65 ; 
and  Pilgrimage,  180 ;  Portal,  108, 109,  1 16, 
130,  314,  328;  compared  with  Dijon,  St.- 
Benigne,  130 ;  Abbaye,  relation  to  Avenas, 
1 18;  Charlieu,  Refectory,  Relief,  119; 
Compostela,  194;  Souillac,  199f. ;  Tou¬ 
louse,  St.-Sernin,  205 :  Spandrel  figures, 
I43  ;  Tympanum,  131,  135,  140,  145  ;  Vous- 
sures,  1 44. 


INDEX 


367 


“Cluny  Master,”  III.  30-33. 

Coat,  fluttering  behind  Constantines,  190. 

Cognac,  Portal,  western.  Ill.  iog6, 339. 

Cologne,  Cacilienkirche,  Tympanum,  152; 
Kunstgewerbe  Museum,  Ivory,  (XI  cen¬ 
tury,  first  half),  75;  Reliquary,  189;  St. 
Marien  im  Kapitol,Wooden  Doors,  1 6 1 , 284. 

Combat  of  Knights,  Ill.  27. 

Conical  casques,  {see  Casques). 

Conques,  Cupola,  central,  Squinch,  Ill.  j88, 
j8gi,  258;  Fagade,  southern.  Ill.  j8/;  In¬ 
terior,  Ill.  j86,  390,  sgi,  1 55,  198,  237, 
326;  Lintel,  236;  Pilgrimage  Road,  180, 
181 ;  Relation  to  Santiago  de  Compostela, 
181,  194,  228f.;  Sculptures,  8;  Statue,  35; 
Tomb  of  the  Abbot  B^on  III,  230f. ; 
Tympanum,  western.  Ill.  392-^00,  198, 
249,  252,  276. 

Conrad,  Ill.  2^3. 

Consecration  Dates,  5. 

Constancy,  Ill.  396. 

Constantine,  Ill.  461,  763,  77?,  774,  924,  947, 
1008,  /oil,  1031,  1052,  1093,  1093a,  1097, 
1126, 187f. 

Constantinople,  Museum  of  Tschinili-Kiosk, 
Sculptured  Column,  87. 

Conversano,  Cattedrale,  8;  Tympanum, 
western.  Ill.  179, 144. 

Corbeil,  Notre-Dame,  Sculptured  jambs  now 
in  Paris,  Louvre,  Ill.  1467, 1468. 

Corbie,  Notre-Dame,  Portal,  western.  Ill. 

^514, 1515-. 

Cordes,  Pilgrimage  Road,  180. 

Cordoba,  Mosque,  227;  Relation  to  Casale 
Monferrato,  San  Baudelio,  Aklepat,  Ar¬ 
menia,  186. 

Corme-Royal,  Facade,  western.  Ill.  1012- 
1016,  103,  341 ;  Portal,  central.  Ill.  1017. 

Cormery,  Pilgrimage  Road,  179,  258. 

Corneilla-de-Conflent,  Tympanum,  Ill.  328, 
19, 132f. 

Corneto,  Art  of  the  Pilgrimage  T ype,  183,186. 

Coulombs,  Sculptured  Column,  now  in  Paris, 
Louvre,  Ill.  1471-1473,  79. 

Courajod  Crucifix,  Ill.  630,  631. 

Covadonga,  Sarcophagus  of  Pelayo,  70. 

Creation  and  Fall  of  Man,  Ill.  397. 

Cremona,  Frieze,  336;  Jamb  sculptures,  325, 
327;  Influence  of  Lombard  sculpture,  183; 
Reliefs,  4,  72,  73,  218,  222;  Relation  to 
Angouleme,  309;  to  Charlieu,  73. 

Crocheted  Capitals,  {see  Capitals). 

Cross,  Carrying  of,  {see  Christ). 

Crossed  Legs,  {see  Legs). 

Crouzilles,  Fagade,  Statues  of.  Ill.  1137, 1138, 
341 ;  Vault  sculptures,  1 52,  258. 

Cruas,  Crypt,  18;  Mosaic,  74;  Mosaic  Pave¬ 
ments,  224. 

Crucifixion,  {see  Christ). 


Crusade,  Ill.  1268. 

Crusaders,  Ill.  1487. 

Cugnoli,  Pulpit,  330. 

Cypress-Trees,  214. 

Daniel,  Ill.  419, 461,378, 829, 829b,  836, 
909, 938, 1146, 1222, 321, 325 ;  in  the  Lion’s 
Den,  Ill.  1,33,278,288. 

Daphni,  Mosaics,  325. 

Darmstadt,  Ivory  casket,  Byzantine,  X-XI 
century,  217;  Ivory  box,  late  XI  century, 
75 ;  Hessisches  Landmuseum,  Ivory,  28. 

Daschlut,  74,  190;  Portal,  now  in  Cairo 
Museum,  141. 

David,  Ill.  189,  477,  478,  367,  370,  687,  871, 
1149,  1133,  1327,  1437,  1464,  1493,  1307, 
1508,  1313,  216,  325;  Angel  appears  to. 
Ill.  jjd,  1327;  Dance  of.  Ill.  291,  364,  371; 
and  Gad,  Ill.  570;  and  Goliath,  Ill.  J./,  283, 
1043,  1069,  1326,  i~J2 ;  Nathan  and  Bath- 
sheba  before.  Ill.  367;  Nathan  reproaches, 

111.38.  . 

Dax,  Pilgrimage  Road,  179;  St.-Paul,  Relief 
in  Apse,  111.  327-332,  22f.,  26f.,  336. 

Deacon  with  Chalice,  Ill.  /80. 

Death,  Announcement  of.  Ill.  1262. 

Deborah,  Ill.  13/2. 

De  Caumont,  9. 

Deceased,  Death  of.  Ill.  890;  Soul  of,  carried 
by  Angels,  Ill.  89/. 

December,  Ill.  38/,  1099, 1443. 

Deesis,  Ill.  251. 

Deity,  The,  Ill.  302, 37^,  790,  868, 1330. 

Delilah,  Ill.  948,  1029;  Samson  and,  {see 
Samson). 

Deposition,  {see  Christ). 

Die,  Cathedrale,  Capitals  of  narthex,  ex¬ 
terior,  Ill.  1228,  1229;  Tympanum,  west¬ 
ern,  Ill.  1230, 301. 

Diego  Gelmirez,  177. 

Dijon,  Musee  Archeologique,  Tympanum 
from  St.-Benigne,  Ill.  134,  ^35,  236,  116, 
123f.,  128,  301 :  St.-Benigne,  Buttresses, 
195 ;  Influence  of  Jerusalem,  Church  of  the 
Holy  Sepulchre,  185 ;  Portal,  western,  (des¬ 
troyed),  Ill.  144,  143,  130,  161 ;  compared 
with  Cluny,  130 ;  Tympanum  from  Abbey, 
now  in  Musee  Archeologique,  Ill.  134,  ^35, 
136,  116,  123f.,  128,  279,  297,  301. 

Dives,  Damnation  of.  Ill.  368;  Death  of.  Ill. 
369;  Feast  of.  Ill.  367,  987;  and  Lazarus, 
Ill.  844. 

Domine  ^uo  Vadis,  Ill.  61 1,  613, 12i3- 

Donors,  Ill.  231,  230,  233,  261,  893,  894, 
893, 1016, 1037,  ^038, 1223. 

Donzy,  Notre-Dame-du-Pre,  Portal,  western. 
Ill.  1 12-114,  106, 124,  252,  276;  Pilgrimage 
Road,  175 ;  Tympanum,  Ill.  113, 114,  246; 
compared  with  Chartres,  124. 


INDEX 


368 

Dormition,  (see  Virgin). 

Dromedary,  Ill.  iji. 

Dublin,  Trinity  College,  Book  of  Kells,  21, 

205,  257,  301. 

Durham,  Cathedral,  12,  16;  Rib  vaults,  139. 

Ebreuil,  St.-Leger,  Fragment,  now  in  Mou- 
lins  Museum,  Ill.  129 ;  Reliefs,  now 

in  Moulins  Museum,  Ill. 7^55, 51,129. 
Ecclesiastics,  Ill.  /0/6,  loi'j. 

Echillais,  341. 

Echternach  Master,  38,  161,  325. 

Egmond,  Tympanum,  28. 

Elders,  Ill.  g6  137,  138,  339, 340,  342,  430, 
457,  461, 501, 5S4, 5S5, 5S7,  668,  6g6,  734, 
735,  778,  780,  784,  795,  797-799,  800,  802, 
824-828,  920,  979, 1001, 1002, 1048,  J051, 
1055-1057,  1400-1402,  1440,  1460-1462, 
1474,  1476,  1490,  1499,  ^502,  108,  141f., 
142. 

Eleventh  Century,  Sculpture,  18f. 

Eli,  Ill.  1512. 

Elijah,  Ill.  561,  563,  73;  Ascension  of,  Ill. 

563- 

Elindsche,  218. 

Elizabeth  and  a  Youth,  Ill.  62. 

Elne,  Cathedrale,  Cloisters,  1 87 ;  Capitals  of. 
Ill.  611-614;  Tomb  of  F.  de  Solario,  Ill. 
623,  624,  19,  III,  160;  Tomb  of  unknown 
Bishop,  Ill.  625,  19;  Tomb  of  Guillaume  de 
Jordan,  Ill.  626,  19,  iii. 

Elongation,  96. 

Ely,  Cathedral,  Tympanum,  132f. 

Emmaus,  Feast  at.  Ill.  50,  468,  900,  1265, 
1409;  Journey  to.  Ill.  65,  468,  667,  709, 
1336,  ^2f. 

Enel,  38. 

Enger,  Tomb  of  Widukind,  8. 

Enoch,  Ill.  105, 1513,  73. 

Enrico,  Ill.  191-193,  201,  202. 

Entombment,  (see  Christ). 

Entry  into  Jerusalem,  (see  Christ). 

Espalion,  Pilgrimage  Road,  181;  Portal, 
northern.  Ill.  404-408,  198;  Tympanum, 
northern.  Ill.  402,  403,  198. 

Essen,  Stiftskirche,  Ivories  of  Abtissen  Theo- 
phanu,  75. 

Estabaliz,  Pilgrimage  Road,  179;  Portal, 
southern.  Ill.  772,  164. 

Estany,  Cloisters,  187. 

Esteban,  Bishop,  312. 

Estella,  Pilgrimage  Road,  175,  179,  195: 
Relation  to  Arles,  St.-Trophlme,  299 ;  San 
Miguel,  Portal,  northern.  Ill.  778-781, 
256 ;  Reliefs  near  northern  portal.  Ill.  783, 
785,  256 ;  Sculptures  of  northern  fagade. 
Ill.  782,  784,  256;  Tympanum,  northern. 
Ill.  777,  256:  San  Pedro,  Cloisters,  187; 
Capitals  of.  Ill.  806-8/0. 


Esther,  Ill.  1463. 

Etampes,  compared  with  Chartres,  164: 
Jamb  sculptures,  242:  Pilgrimage  Road, 
179:  Notre  Dame,  Portal,  Southern,  Ill. 
1460-/464,  134,  141,  143,  144,  163,  252; 
Statue,  now  in  Chapel,  Ill.  /465,  /466; 
Tympanum,  southern.  Ill.  /462;  St.-Basile, 
Portal,  western,  archivolts.  Ill. 

Ethiopian,  Ill.  /29. 

Etienne  presents  a  Capital,  Ill.  7/<?J. 

Eunate,  Influence  of  Jerusalem,  Church  of  the 
Holy  Sepulchre,  185. 

Evangelists,  Ill.  /73,  /80,  /86,  234,  246,  25/, 
556,  665,  796,  951,  /230.  (See  Majestas 
Domini). 

Eve,  (see  Adam  and  Eve). 

Evolution,  in  medieval  Art,  13. 

Executioners,  Ill.  /292,  /297. 

Expulsion,  (see  Adam  and  Eve). 

Externstein,  of  the  Teutoberger  Forest,  9,  53, 

63, 149- 

Ezekiel,  Ill.  858,  325. 


Faith,  Ill.  989. 

February,  Ill.  /098,  /099,  /444,  /5/0. 

Fenioux,  Fagade,  western.  Ill.  997,  333;  Por¬ 
tal,  western.  Ill.  998,  333. 

Ferrara,  Cattedrale,  Lintel,  74;  Lombard 
sculpture,  183;  Nicolo,  work  of,  133,' 144, 
145,  146,  152,  241,  333;  Pilgrimage  Road, 
187;  Portal,  4,  219,  222,  225,  226. 

Ferreiros,  Pilgrimage  Road,  175. 

Figeac,  Pilgrimage  Road,  180. 

Flagellation,  (see  Christ). 

Fleury-la-Montagne,  Tympanum,  western. 


Ill.  /07,  120. 

Flight  into  Egypt,  (see  Christ). 

Florence,  Battistero,  16:  Bargello,  Ivory 
boxes,  48,  190;  Ivory,  216;  Ivory  panel. 
Ill.  650,  38,  46;  Ivory,  X  century,  46; 
Ivory,  XI  century,  50 ;  Campanile  di 
Giotto,  78  :  San  Miniato,  16. 

Flying  Buttresses,  195. 

Foggia,  Castle  of  Pontano,  183;  Cattedrale, 
Sculptures  in  Garden,  Ill.  242,  243;  Influ¬ 
ence  of  Pisa,  185. 

Foliage,  naturalistic,  86. 

Foligno,  Cattedrale,  219. 

Fontaines-D’Ozillac,  Portal,  western.  Ill. 
977,978,7,41. 

Fontevrault,  Abbaye,  308;  Capital,  Ill.  923, 
123,308. 

Fontfroide,  Relief,  now  at  Montpellier,  Uni¬ 
versity,  Ill.  /30/,  246!.,  277. 

Fortune,  Wheel  of.  Ill.  2423 ;  /424, 1 64. 

Foussais,  Fagade,  western.  Ill.  /06/-/063, 
164,  337;  Portal,  central,  Ill.  /062. 

Fox,  and  Chickens,  Ill.  /263;  as  School-mas¬ 
ter,  Ill.  2263 ;  and  Stork,  Ill.  /263. 


INDEX 


Fra  Guglielmo,  293. 

Frankfurt,  A. /M.,  Stiftsbibliotek,  Ivories, 
204. 

Frederick  II,  Ill.  245. 

Freiberg  i.  Sa.,  Goldene  Pforte,  277. 

Freiburg,  Munster,  Nikolauskapelle,  Relief, 
53- 

Frejus,  Pilgrimage  Road,  186. 

Frieze,  sculptured,  23,  267f. 

Fromista,  Pilgrimage  Road,  175,  179. 

Funeral  Procession,  Ill.  1262. 

Gabriel,  Ill.  777,  201,  480,  482,  48J,  ^§4, 
82ga,  iijg,  1516. 

Gallale,  St.-Anthony,  Monastery,  188,  191. 
Galterius,  Bishop,  270. 

Gamaliel,  Ill.  1^62. 

Gamaliel  Master,  299. 

“Gamma”  Wings,  123. 

Ganogobie,  Cloister,  Ill.  I2jj,  I2j8,  221 ; 

Tympanum,  western.  Ill.  I2j6,  134,  I40. 
Gargilesse,  Capital  of  nave.  Ill.  82,  8j,  146, 

H?- 

Gassicourt,  Wooden  Virgin,  Ill.  I4gj. 

Gates  of  Heaven  and  Hell,  Ill.  400. 

Generosity  vs.  Avarice,  Ill.  J182. 

Genova,  Cattedrale,  Cappella  San  Giovanni, 
Area,  Ill.  248;  Fagade,  western.  Ill.  258, 
184,  222;  Portal,  central  western.  111.  555, 
256,  184;  Portal,  western.  Ill.  2§j,  184; 
Tympanum,  western.  Ill.  2^4,  135,  140, 
184. 

Gensac-la-Pallue,  Relief  of  fagade,  western, 
111.709^,7095,341. 

Gerona,  Catedral,  21 ;  Cloister,  Ill.  597,  ^g8, 
loi,  104,  187;  Capitals  of.  Ill.  590.*  San 
Feliu,  Sepulchral  Relief  in  Church,  Ill.  6i’j: 
San  Pedro  de  Galligans,  Cloisters,  187; 
Capitals  of,  Ill.  599. 

Gideon,  Ill.  1512. 

Gilabertus,  {see  Gilbert),  Ill.  4^4,  150. 
Gilbert,  Ill.  ^79,  no,  150, 157,  160,  163,  164, 
242,  {see  Gilabertus  and  Gislebertus). 
Gilglelm,  Ill.  1058. 

Girard,  Bishop,  307. 

Giraud  Audebert  of  St.-Jean-d’Angely,  Ill. 

1061,  164,  337. 

Girauldus,  Ill.  1263. 

Gislebertus,  {see  Gilbert),  III.  79,  80,  81,  no, 
.^50.' 

Giving  the  Keys,  {see  Christ). 

Gnesen,  Bronze  Doors,  Relation  to  Bronze 
Doors  of  Novgorod,  Russia,  255. 

Gniezno,  {see  Gnesen). 

God,  Ill.  970, 1220;  the  Father,  Ill.  6j6,  jg6. 
Gofridus,  147. 

Grado,  Throne,  69,  70,  244,  283,  289,  325. 
Grammar,  Ill.  6,  775,  77*5, 1116,  135,  149. 
Grimoard,  Bishop,  318. 


369 

Groppoli,  Chapel  of  Villa  Dalpina,  Ill.  2^0, 
160;  San  Michele,  Pulpit,  Ill.  22g,  160. 
Grossenlinden,  Proto-voussure  sculptures, 
220,  328. 

Grotesques,  Ill.  1^6,328,  8oj,  979. 

Grotta  Dei  Santi,  Frescos,  29. 

Gruamonte,  Ill.  igi,  160. 

Guglielmo,  18,  23,  66f.,  67,  72,  73,  202,  218, 
237,  25s,  293,  294,  296,  297,  298,  304,  309, 
325>  327,  332,  340;  da  Innspruch,  {see 
Innspruch) ;  Tedesco,  Tedesco). 

Guido  Bigarelli  da  Como,  Ill.  234, 160. 
Guillaume,  333 ;  de  Martin,  {see  Martin). 
Gunzo,  79. 

Habakkuk,  Ill.  7,  4ig,  57^,  858,  gog,  1222, 
3^S- 

Hagetmau,  Pilgrimage  Road,  180. 
Haggai,32S. 

Hague,  The,  Niederlandischen  Museum, 
Fragments  from  St.  Odilienberg,  220. 
Halberstadt,  Liebfrauenkirche,  192. 

Halos,  Star-inscribed,  152. 

Hand,  Divine,  Ill.  gj4;  raised,  palm  turned 
outward,  47. 

Heads,  Ill.  1458,  I45g;  in  medallions,  145, 

313- 

Hebrews  murmur  against  Moses  and  Aaron, 

111.590. 

Helena,  Empress,  188. 

Hell,  Ill.  go,  95,  401,  402,  yi4, 1377;  Harrow- 
ing  of,  {see  Christ). 

Heraclius,  98. 

Hercules  and  the  Nemaean  Lion,  290. 
Herford,  Germany,  Tomb  of  Widukind,  149. 
Herod,  Feast  of.  Ill.  283,  2go,  446. 

Hexham,  Cross,  7,  16,  22. 

Hildesheim,  Bronze  column,  35 ;  Bronze 
doors,  15,  34,  36,  50,  227;  Psalter  of  St.- 
Albans,  64;  School  of  XI  century,  303. 
Hirache,  {see  Irache). 

Holy  Spirit,  The,  Ill.  no. 

Horeb,  Ill.  586, 587, 589. 

Horsemen,  Ill.  1092,  187f. 

Hosea,  Ill.  839. 

Huesca,  San  Pedro  el  Viejo,  Cloisters,  187; 
Capital  of,  Ill.  550,  333,  334;  Tympanum 
of  Entrance  Portal,  Ill.  329,  331, 332,  133, 
25s. 

Hugh,  Ill.  1420. 

Hulla,  Font,  146. 

Humility,  Ill.  396,  gSg. 

Hunting-Scene,  Ill.  1263. 

Iberian  Statue,  Ill.  637, 

Idols,  Fall  of.  Ill.  J7J. 

Ile-de-France,  Artistic  hegemony,  12. 
Innspruch,  Guglielmo  da.  Ill.  186-188,  160, 
293.  294- 


370 


INDEX 


Irache,  Pilgrimage  Road,  175,  179;  Relation 
to  Santiago  de  Compostela,  181. 

Isaiah,  Ill.  //o,  344, 343, 361, 3gi,  829,  836, 
938, 1162,1307, 1313,  1 27, 322,  325. 

Isola,  San  Giulio,  Pulpit,  148,  225,  232. 

Issoire,  Pilgrimage  Road,  180;  St.-Austre- 
moine,  Absidial  chapel,  exterior.  Ill.  1208; 
Capital  of  Ambulatory,  Ill.  1212-1214,  149, 
284,  333 ;  Relief  of  Apse,  exterior.  Ill. 
i2og~i2ii ,  236,  237 :  School  of  Auvergne, 
181. 

Issy,  Relief,  Ill.  1489,  140. 

Iteus  Archembaldi,  307. 

Ivories,  Spanish,  Early,  37f. 

Ivrea,  Cattedrale,  193. 

Ivry-la-Bataille,  Lintel,  Influence  of  Char¬ 
tres,  134;  Portal,  western.  Ill.  1474-1478, 
130, 140. 


Jaca,  Catedral,  Book-cover,  now  in  Metro¬ 
politan  Museum  of  Art,  New  York,  Ill. 
519,  21  y  41,  48,  52;  Capital  of  Cloister, 
Ill.  322,  323,  324;  Capital,  exterior.  Ill. 
320,  321,  323,  326,  51 ;  Tympanum,  west¬ 
ern,  Ill.  616:  Convento  de  Monjas  Bene- 
dictinas.  Sarcophagus  of  the  Daughters  of 
Ramiro  I,  Ill.  327,  248  :  Pilgrimage  Road, 
179. 

Jacob’s  Dream,  Ill.  103,  204,  203;  wrestles 
with  the  Angel,  Ill.  203,  206. 

Jamb  Sculptures,  217f. 

January,  Ill.  381, 1099. 

Jativa,  Ablution-basin,  65. 

Jephthah,  Ill.  /s/2. 

Jeremiah,  Ill.  363,  829,  836,  938,  /493,  /307, 

322,325. 

Jerusalem,  Church  of  the  Holy  Sepulchre, 
Pilgrimage  Road,  185,  188;  the  Heavenly, 
Ill.  328;  Miniatures  of  XI  century,  190; 
St.  John,  Sangiiesa  dedicated  to  him,  254. 
Jesse,  Ill.  939,  /3/3, 322;  Tree  of.  Ill.  226. 
Job,  Ill.  /2/8,  /34/,  165;  and  the  Angel,  Ill. 

462;  and  his  Friends,  Ill.  462. 

Joel,  325. 

Joffre,  Ill.  903. 

Jonah,  Ill.  7/4,  836;  God  sends  him  to  Nine¬ 
veh,  Ill.  376;  before  Ninevelu  Ill.  373; 
swallowed  by  Whale,  Ill.  37^y  vomited 
forth.  Ill.  373. 

Joram,  Ill.  /3/2. 

Josaphat,  Ill.  /3/2. 

Joshua,  Ill.  /3/2. 

Judas,  Ill.  32,  83,  /337;  hangs  himself,  Ill. 
32;  Kiss  of.  Ill.  83;  receives  the  Price  of  his 
Treason,  Ill.  /292,  /293. 

Judgment,  The  Last,  Ill.  80,  8/,  92,392,394, 
397-401,  409-413,  431-433,  747,  7S6,  822, 
//g/,  //92,  /366,  /369,  /4/3,  /439,  /440, 
96,  97,  232!.;  the  Blessed,  Ill.  398,  838, 


/490:  the  Damned,  Ill.  23,  89,  837,  //92, 
/375,  1490;  Souls  of,  driven  into  Hell,  Ill. 
90;  Tortures  of.  Ill.  89;  the  Elect,  111.  394, 
393,  //g/,  //92:  Separation  of  the  Elect 
and  the  Damned,  Ill.  //p2. 

Judith,  Ill.  44. 

July,  Ill.  /096. 

Jumieges,  Influence  of  Lombard  Architec¬ 
ture,  183. 

Just,  Death  of  the.  Ill.  239. 

Justice,  Divine,  Ill.  6/6. 

Kalinic,  Fresco,  190. 

Karlsruhe,  Vereinigte  Sammlungen,  Tympa¬ 
num,  from  Petershausen,  132f. 

Kief,  Mosaics,  21,  69,  314. 

Kings,  of  Judah,  Ill.  473,  476,  /307;  Scenes 
from  the  Book  of.  Ill.  564. 

Kumurdo,  181. 

Kyoto,  Exposition,  Gilt  Bronze  Image,  47, 

119,  315- 

Labarum,  Ill.  303,  329,  33/,  332,  348,  6/7, 
766, 799, 804. 

La  Celle  Bruere,  Relief  of  Fagade,  Ill. 
/470,2b. 

La  Charite-sur-Loire,  compared  with  Char¬ 
tres  and  Montmorillon,  125!.:  Lintel  of 
northern  portal.  Ill.  /2/,  285 :  Pilgrimage 
Road,  175  :  Tower,  central.  Ill.  /.2j>;  Tym¬ 
panum,  northern.  Ill.  /20,  /22,  125f. ; 
Tympanum,  southern.  Ill.  //3~//9,  125f., 
161,  279,  292,  300. 

“Lady  of  Elche,”  209. 

La  Lande  de  Fronzac,  Portal,  southern.  Ill. 
9/6,  328!.,  329;  Tympanum,  southern,  Ill. 

917,  25,51,328,330- 

L’  Ane  ^ui  Joue,  Ill.  26,  /26,  /233. 

Laon,  Influence  of  Jerusalem,  Church  of  the 
Holy  Sepulchre,  185. 

La  Sauve  Majeure,  Abbaye,  Capital,  Ill.  JJJ- 
336,  IT,  Pilgrimage  Road,  175,  180. 

Las  Caldas  de  Oviedo,  Santa  Maria  de  Pre- 
orio,  Portal,  western.  Ill.  88/,  882,  220; 
Tympanum,  western.  Ill.  880. 

Later  Monuments  of  the  West,  320f. 
Lausanne,  Cathedrale,  Influence  of  Santiago 
de  Compostela,  265. 

Lavanthal,  Influence  of  Cluny  Tympanum, 
through  Chartres,  140;  St.-Paul,  277. 
Lavaudieu,  Cloisters,  222;  Capital  of,  Ill. 
/239;  Colonnette  of.  Ill.  /240:  Pilgrimage 
Road,  1 80. 

La  Villedieu,  Relief  of  Fagade,  western,  Ill. 
//20,  //2/,  341. 

Lazarus,  111.366,367;  and  Dives,  Ill.  988; 
Resurrection  of.  III.  223,  34/,  664,  /078, 
1315,  I3i(>,  73^7- 

Lefevre-Pontalis,  10. 


INDEX 


Leg-bands,  in,  163,  166,  250. 

Legs,  Crossed,  20,  21,  51,  187,  317. 

Leger,  or  Leodegarius,  254. 

Leipzig,  Staatsbibliotek,  Ivory  Book-cover, 
Ada  Group,  IX  century,  302. 

Leire,  San  Salvador,  Portal,  western,  Ill. 
772-7/5,  55,  143,  218,  240;  Tympanum, 
western,  Ill.  7//,  7/(5,  240,  260. 

Le  Mans,  Cathedrale,  193:  Lintel,  Influence 
of  Chartres,  135  ;  Influence  of  Cluny  tym¬ 
panum  through  Chartres,  140:  Notre- 
Dame-de-la-Couture ;  193;  Relief  in  north¬ 
ern  wall.  Ill.  1412,11% ;  Sculptures  compared 
with  Montmorillon,  125.  _ 

Lentini,  Cathedrale,  Steatite  Carving,  XI- 
XII  century,  189. 

Leodegarius,  or  Leger,  254. 

Leon,  Catedral,  Stained  glass,  196;  Museo 
San  Marcos,  Capital,  from  Sahagun,  Ill. 
y68,  2§j ;  Crucifix,  Ivory,  from  San  Isi- 
doro.  Ill.  705,  40f.,  70,  262;  Sculptured 
Colonnette  from  Sahagun,  Ill.  /6p;  Sculp¬ 
tured  Column,  from  Sahagun,  Ill.  77  n 
Sculptured  Fragment,  said  to  come  from 
Astorga,  Ill.  J04:  Panteon  de  los  Reyes, 
Capital,  Ill.  718;  San  Isidoro,  236 ;  Casket, 
Ivory,  now  in  Madrid,  Ill.  6§i~6^j,  38f., 
45,  46,  51,  164,  252;  Crucifix,  Ivory,  Ill. 
654,  65s,  52,  54,  69,  98,  262;  Crucifix, 
Ivory,  now  in  Museo  San  Marcos,  Ill. 
703,  40f.,  262 ;  Crucifix,  37,  39f . :  Pilgrim¬ 
age  Roacl,  175,  179,  195:  Portal,  eastern. 
Ill.  700,  701,  198;  Portal,  western.  Ill. 
6p6-6p8,  143,  198,  238;  Reliefs,  7;  Tym¬ 
panum,  southern  transept.  Ill.  702,  198; 
Tympanum,  western.  Ill.  6pp,  198;  Sagra 
San  Michele,  Pilgrimage  Road,  175. 

Le  Puy,  Catheclrale,  Derivation  of  west  front, 
187 ;  Hotel-Dieu,  Columns,  now  in  Musee, 
Ill.  1231, 1232:  Musee,  Capitals,  Ill.  1233; 
Columns  from  Hotel-Dieu,  Ill.  1231, 1232: 
Pilgrimage  Road,  180:  St.-Michel-de- 
I’Aiguille,  Derivation  of  cusping,  187; 
Portal,  Ill.  1220:  School  of  Velay,  181. 

Lerida,  Catedral,  Fragments,  Ill.  553, 554, 
160;  Museo,  Antependium  from  Sigena, 
Ill-  555,  208 ;  Fragments  from  Catedral, 
Ill-  553,  554- 

Leyre,  Pilgrimage  Road,  175,  179. 

Lezat,  Pilgrimage  Road,  175,  179. 

Libra,  Ill.  995. 

Licorne,  Ill.  127. 

Liege,  St.-Barthelemy,  Font,  15. 

LTle-Bouchard,  St.-Leonard,  Capital  of 
Ambulatory,  Ill.  1100-1107,  284,  332, 

.333-  ,  .  .  .  .  ^ 

Limbo,  Christ  m,  {see  Christ,  Harrowing  of 
Hell). 

Limoges,  Enamels,  251 ;  St.-Martial,  193; 


371 

Pilgrimage  Road,  175;  Relation  to  Com¬ 
postela,  194. 

Lintel,  Burgundian,  133f. 

Lion,  Ill.  171,  188,  23P,  674;  and  the  Man, 
Ill.  23p;  supporting,  66. 

Litchfield,  Landisfarne  Gospels,  Book  of  St. 
Chad,  205. 

Liverpool,  Casket,  Ivory,  X  century,  190. 
Loarre,  Capital,  Ill.  600;  Portal,  southern.  Ill. 
601. 

Loches,  St.-Ours,  Console  in  Choir,  Ill.  1108- 
II 10,  332;  Porch,  Vault  sculptures,  258; 
Portal,  western.  Ill.  //// — mp,  107,  332; 
Pilgrimage  Road,  179. 

Lodi,  Catedral,  219. 

Logrono,  Pilgrimage  Road,  179. 

Lombard  influences,  185f. 

London,  British  Museum,  Beatus  Manu¬ 
script  of,  1109,  written  for  Santo  Domingo 
de  Silos,  56;  Byzantine  Ivory,  46,  283; 
Charter  of  King  Edgar  to  New  Minster, 
(Winchester)  ,100;  Cottonian  Psalter,  1 1 1 ; 
Flabellum,  Xll  century,  220;  German 
Pyxis  in  Ivory,  iii;  German  Pyxis,  IX 
century,  284;  Gospels,  early  IX  century, 
46;  Ivory  Book-cover,  69;  Ivory,  Carlo- 
vingian,  152;  Ivory  Diptych,  1 1 1 ;  Ivories  of 
X  century,  72,  217;  Landisfarne  Gospels, 
325;  Life  of  St.  Guthlac  of  Croyland,  XII 
century,  318;  Manuscripts,  XII  century, 
274,  309;  Manuscript  of  the  Winchester 
School,  21 ;  Psalter  of  St.-Swithun’s  Priory, 
21,  318;  Register  of  New  Minster,  21,  iii, 
1 12:  South  Kensington  Museum,  Ivory 
carving,  Ada  Group,  IX  century,  125; 
Ivory  Carving,  Dream  of  Joseph,  125; 
Ivory  Carving,  (Italian.^)  XI-XII  Century, 
230:  Temple  Church,  Influence  of  Jeru¬ 
salem,  Church  of  the  Holy  Sepulchre,  185 : 
Victoria  and  Albert  Museum,  Ivory  of  the 
Ada  Group,  162,  204. 

Longpont,  Pilgrimage  Road,  175,  179. 
Lubersac,  Capitals  of  Apse,  exterior.  Ill. 
1241, 1242. 

Lucca,  Cattedrale,  Tympanum,  western.  Ill. 
247,  132f.,  184;  San  Giovanni,  Portal, 
western.  Ill.  227,  134;  San  Salvatore,  Lin¬ 
tel,  southern,  Ill.  223, 1 57, 160,  294;  Lintel, 
western,  \\\.224. 

Lugo,  Catedral,  Portal,  northern.  Ill.  728, 

253- 

Luxury,  Ill.  34a,  315,  371,  67P,  p2I,  ppi, 
1030,  1 1 31,  214. 

Lyon,  Cathedrale,  Capital,  166:  Ivory  Cas¬ 
ket,  X-XI  century,  314:  Manecanterie, 
Fa?ade,  Ill.  1243,  1244,  1243,  147:  St.- 
Martin  d’Ainay,  6,  304;  Lintel,  147. 

Maastricht,  Sculptures,  loi. 


372 


INDEX 


Macon,  St.-Vincent,  Pilgrimage  Road,  175; 
Tympanum,  western.  Ill.  122. 

Madrid,  Academia  de  Historia,  Missal  from 
San  Millan  de  la  Cogolla,  50 :  Library, 
Manuscript  of  Spanish  origin,  XII  century, 
230;  Museo  Arquelogico  Nacional,  Capi¬ 
tals,  Ill.  792,  797,  164;  Crucifix  of  San  Isi¬ 
dore,  Leon,  37,  39f. ;  Iberian  Statue,  Ill. 
637,  57,  72;  Ivory  Reliefs  of  the  Beati¬ 
tudes,  38f. ;  Moorish  box  from  Palencia, 
40;  Relief,  from  Sahagiin,  Ill.  770,  57f., 
72 ;  Ivory  carvings  from  Leon,  San  Isidore, 
Ill.  651-655,  38f.,  45,  46,  51,  52,  54,  69,  98. 

Magdalen,  Mary,  Ill.  41,  1^7,  p^6;  anoints 
the  feet  of  Christ,  Ill.  fjgo;  the  Ravishing 
of.  Ill.  1404. 

Magi,  Ill.  144,374,  407, 503,  773,  795,  ii49, 
1150,  I36g;  Adoration  of.  Ill.  51,  72,  87, 
93, 94, 95, 102, 107, 1 18, 140,  igi,  215, 226, 
234,  246, 323-325, 375,  447, 53^,  (>04-606, 
633,  680,  780,  781,  807,  802,  go5,  mi¬ 
ll  14,  1160, 1301, 1328, 1386;  before  Herod, 
Ill.  140,  igi,  530,  806,  1188;  Journey  of. 
Ill.  102, 140;  Sleep  of.  Ill.  1471',  Story  of. 
Ill.  1374. 

Maguelonne,  Pilgrimage  Road,  180,  186: 
Cathedrale,  Portal,  western,  south  tran¬ 
sept,  Ill.  1285,  1286,  268f. ;  Relation  to 
Angouleme  lunettes,  269 ;  to  Toulouse,  St.- 
Sernin,  Ambulatory  sculptures,  269;  Re¬ 
liefs  near  Portal,  western.  Ill.  1287,  1288, 
258f.,  270,  276,  310;  Tympanum,  Ill. 
1384,  140,  261,  302. 

Maidens,  The  Three  Dowerless,  Ill.  1128, 
Ii2g. 

Maillezais,  Portal,  western,  Ill.  pdj,  341. 

Mainz,  Choir,  east,  232;  Marktportal,  1321. ; 
Tomb-stone  of  the  Archbishop  Hatto,  22. 

Majestas  Domini,  Ill.J,  4,  //,  12,  84,  g8,  gg, 
106, 108,  III,  1 1 6, 120, 174, 1^5, 143, 144, 
214,  254,  2g6, 321, 33g,  341, 381, 383,  402, 
452,  488-4gi,  501,  502,  508, 513-515,  528, 
534, 544,  602-604,  656,  (57,  (59,  717,  724, 
729,  74S,  77 D  777,  792,  795,  799,  ^01,  823, 
880,  g2j,  g2g,  g5i,  g64,  1018,  io5g,  1060, 
1064,  1140,  1145,  ii4g,  1150,  1158,  1185, 
1187,  ii8g,  1236,  1257,  1270,  1275,  1300, 
1372, 1384, i48g,  i4go,  I4g2,i4g6, 1501,  28, 
116,  128,  135,  279,  297,328. 

Malachi,  Ill.  85g,  325. 

Malmesbury,  Abbey,  Tympanum,  132f. ; 
Sculptures,  Burgundian  influence,  161. 

Manchester,  John  Rylands  Collection,  Ivory 
X  century,  205. 

Man  fighting  Bear,  Ill.  180. 

Manna,  Ill.  586,  587. 

Mar,  St.-Paul,  Frescos,  188. 

March,  Ill.  iog8. 

Marcilhac,  Capital  of  Cloister,  Ill.  1145,  103; 


of  narthex.  Ill.  1146;  Relief  of  Portal,  south¬ 
ern,  Ill.  1142-1144. 

Maries,  The,  Ill.  610, 746, 753;  buying  Spices, 
Ill.  I2g8,  i3gi;  at  the  Tomb,  Ill.  150, 157, 
286,  ig7,  327,  464,  720,  785,  808,  8ig, 
1087,  io8g,  iigo,  1225,  1226,  1227,  I2g8, 

1391- 

Marignan,  Chronology,  ii. 

Marmoutier,  Sacramentary,  310. 

Mars,  Tympanum,  western.  Ill.  1140,  132f. 
Marseille,  Cathedrale  Ancienne,  Altar-fron¬ 
tal,  Ill.  1283,  1284,  155,  267,  268;  Musee 
Borely,  Capital,  said  to  come  from  Mont- 
majour.  Ill.  nog;  Fragment  of  a  Pulpit, 
Ill.  1410;  Tomb  of  St.  Isarne,  from  St.- 
Victor,  Ill.  1278,  32f. ;  St.-Victor,  32;  Pil¬ 
grimage  Road,  186;  Rib  Vaults,  139; 
Tomb  of  St.  Isarne,  now  in  Musee,  Ill. 
1278. 

Marsico  Nuovo,  Basilicata,  218. 

Martel,  Pilgrimage  Road,  180;  Tympanum, 
western.  Ill.  431-433,  250. 

Martha  and  Mary  supplicate  Christ,  Ill. 

2325-2327- 

Martin,  Guillaume  de.  Ill.  1218,  I2ig,  i6c, 
166,  279,  294,  298. 

Martinus  Monachus,  Ill.  I47-I4g. 

Martyrs,  Ill.  486,  487, 500, 1414. 

Master  of  the  Bari  Throne,  280,  286,  289, 
290,  295,  296. 

Master  of  Etampes,  Chartres,  Portal,  west¬ 
ern,  163,  164,  166. 

Mateo,  Ill.  82g,  831,  213,  230,  253,  258,  259, 
262 ;  Portrait  of.  Ill.  831. 

Matha,  Facade,  western.  Ill.  1031-1033,  341. 
Mauriac,  Baptismal  Font,  Ill.  1248;  Portal, 
western.  Ill.  I24g;  Tympanum,  western. 
Ill.  1246, 1247, 132f.,  134, 248f.,  250. 
Mavo,  123. 

May,  Ill.  582,  iog8. 

Meillers,  Capital,  of  Portal,  western.  Ill. 
1253;  Lintel,  western.  Ill.  1251, 132f.,  236; 
Wooden  Statue,  Ill.  1252. 

Melchisadek,  Ill.  1463. 

Melle,  Pilgrimage  Road,  179;  St. -Hilaire, 
Portal,  northern.  Ill.  ion,  341 ;  St.-Pierre, 
Capital  of  nave.  Ill.  logi,  341 ;  Relief  over 
southern  Portal,  Ill.  logo,  341 :  School  of 
the  West,  181. 

Mercy,  Divine,  Ill.  616. 

Mersburg,  Dom,  Tomb-stone  of  Rudolf  von 
Schwaben,  230. 

Mervilliers,  Tympanum,  southern.  Ill.  1482, 
2483. 

Metz,  St.-Pierre  de  la  Citadelle,  Stope  Sculp¬ 
ture,  46,  48. 

Micah,  325. 

Milan,  Art  of  Benedetto,  183  :  Cattedrale,  7 : 
Museo  Archeologico,  Ivory  carving  from 


INDEX 


373 


Grado  Throne,  325  :  San  Ambrogio,  Altar, 
8;  golden,  16,  207;  Basilica  of  Fausta, 
Mosaic,  V  century,  313;  Capital,  104; 
Plaster  Relief,  314;  Pulpit,  Ill.  IJ4,  IJS, 
67f. :  Trivulzio  Collection,  Ivory,  244. 

Millstadt  A.  /M.,  {see  220). 

Mimizan,  Abbaye,  Ill.  4^0,  4(41,  253;  Pil¬ 
grimage  Road,  1 79. 

Minerva,  Statue  of,  72. 

Miracle,  of  the  Bread,  Ill.  1082;  of  the  Loaves 
and  Fishes,  Ill.  //<?7,  ii8g,  1200,  1201, 
1211;  Play,  322. 

Miraculous  Draught  of  Fishes,  Ill.  286^ 

1/52. 

Mithra  and  the  Bull,  189. 

Moarves,  Capital  of  Portal,  Ill.  730-733: 
Frieze  of  Fagade,  Ill.  729,  336;  Relation  to 
Carrion  de  los  Condes,  1 80. 

Modena,  Cattedrale,  4,  23,  72,  73 ;  Architec¬ 
ture  compared  with  Bari,  San  Niccola,  67 ; 
compared  with  Charlieu,  73 ;  Frieze,  336 ; 
influence  of  Beaucaire  Frieze,  284;  influ¬ 
ence  of  Lombard  sculpture,  183;  Porta 
della  Pescheria,  4,  63 ;  Relation  to  Bayeux 
“tapestry,”  Angouleme,  and  Bari,  183; 
Pulpit  and  Screens,  238;  Relief,  compared 
with  Vezelay,  91;  Sculptures,  225;  com¬ 
pared  with  Bari,  San  Niccola,  Throne, 
66f.  ;  in  Gable,  313 ;  representing  the  mak- 
ingof capitals,  102  ;Work  of  Guglielmo,327. 

Modes,  {see  Tones  of  Plain-Song). 

Moissac,  Capitals  of  narthex.  Ill.  jjj,  Jj8; 
Cloisters,  187 ;  Capitals  of.  Ill.  2'J4-28j,  53, 
57,  70,  87,  242,  258;  Pier  Reliefs  of.  Ill. 
262-273,  18,  47,  53,  57,  135,  149,  156,  192, 
238,  241,  316,  328  ;  relation  of  Pier  Reliefs 
to  Toulouse,  St.-Sernin,  Ambulatory  Re¬ 
liefs,  205f.,  206,  208;  Cloisters  compared 
with  Santo  Domingo  de  Silos,  54,  203f. : 
Pilgrimage  Road,  175, 180, 18 1, 186 -.Porch, 
111366-377,  56,  137f.,  275,  316,  335;  rela¬ 
tion  to  Santo  Domingo  de  Silos,  202;  to 
Souillac,  202f. ;  sculptures  above.  Ill.  378, 
379,  380,  275;  Trumeau  of,  Ill.  363-365, 
53:  Portal,  southern.  Ill.  360-362,  218, 
326 ;  Reliefs  compared  with  Achthamar,  1 8  : 
Tympanum,  111339-342,  134,  135f.,  142, 
219,  240,  250,  254;  relation  to  Arles,  St.- 
Trophlme,  298;  to  Souillac,  202f. 

Money-changers,  Ill.  1315-1317. 

Monkey,  playing  the  Violin,  Ill.  126. 

Monopoli,  Cattedrale,  Archivolt,  Ill.  I57_- 
162,  59f.,  70,  1 44,  266;  relation  to  Spain 
and  Aquitaine,  70. 

Monreale,  Mosaics,  XII  century,  314. 

Montceau-l’Etoile,  Tympanum,  western. 
Ill.  104, 105,  75, 122,  141, 149,  249. 

Monte  Cassino,  Basilica,  55,  83 ;  Manuscript, 
125;  San  Bartolommeo,  83;  School,  97. 


Montefiascone,  Rib  Vaults,  186. 

Monte  Gargano,  Pilgrimage  Road,  182. 

Monterey,  220. 

Monte  San  Angelo,  Bronze  Doors,  34;  Pul- 
pit,  31,  33;  Santa  Maria  Maggiore,  Tym¬ 
panum,  western.  Ill.  231,  15,  132;  San 
Michele,  Tympanum,  western.  Ill.  197, 
261,  330;  Throne,  68;  Tomba  di  Rotari, 
Lintel,  western.  Ill.  198,  330. 

Montlaur,  Bishop  Jean  II  de,  270. 

Montlhery,  175. 

Montmajour,  Cloisters,  1 87 ;  Relief  in.  Ill. 
1332, 1333y  300;  Pilgrimage  Road,  175.^ 

Montmorillon,  Fagade,  Ill.  1030,  341 ;  Frieze 
of.  Ill.  1072a,  1073,  28s,  336,  340;  Influ¬ 
ence  of  Jerusalem,  Church  of  the  Holy 
Sepulchre,  185;  Pilgrimage  Road,  179; 
compared  with  Chartres  and  La  Charite- 
sur-Loire,  125. 

Montpellier,  Musee  Archeologique,  Frag¬ 
ments  from  St.-Guilhem-le-Desert,  Ill. 
1400-1402,  26 5  ;  Pilgrimage  Road,  1 80 ; 
University  Court,  Capital  from  St.-Pons, 
Ill.  1268,  1269;  Fragments  from  St.-Guil¬ 
hem-le-Desert,  Ill.  1397,  1398,  203,  279; 
Sculpture  from  Fontfroide,  Ill.  1301,  246. 

Mont  Romeu,  Pilgrimage  Road,  182. 

Mont-St.-Vincent,  Tympanum,  western,  Ill.J. 

Montsaunes,  Portal,  northern.  Ill.  503,  504; 
western.  Ill.  505:  Capitals  of.  Ill.  jod. 

Montserrat,  Pilgrimage  Road,  182. 

Monuments,  Ile-de-France,  Neighbouring 
Regions,  Accepted  Date,  5. 

Moorish  Ivories,  Influence  of,  329^,  331. 

Moraime,  San  Julian,  264. 

Moreaux,  Fagade,  western.  Ill.  1065,  1067, 
1068,  90,  318  :  Pilgrimage  Road,  179 :  Por¬ 
tal,  western.  Ill.  1066. 

Morienval,  Gospel  of,  {see  Noyon).  Ambula¬ 
tory,  10,  ii. 

Morlaas,  Ste.-Foy,  Elders  in  voussures,  radi¬ 
ating,  143:  Pilgrimage  Road,  175,  179: 
Portal,  western.  Ill,  456,  457,  459,  460, 
258f. ;  Tympanum,  western,  Ill.  458, 
161. 

Mosaic  Pavements,  224. 

Moscow,  Bibliotheque  Synodale,  Menologe 
grec,  21. 

Moscufo,  Santa  Maria  del  Lago,  Pulpit,  Ill. 
180, 330. 

Moses,  Ill.  no,  588,  682,  756,  829,  871,  958, 
970, 1437,  IU5, 14^3, 1507, 1508, 321. 

Moulins,  Museum,  Fragment  from  Ebreuil, 
St.-Leger,  Ill.  1254,  129 ;  Fragment  of  Re¬ 
lief  from  St.-Menoux,  Ill.  1259,  ;  Re¬ 

liefs  from  Ebreuil,  St.-Leger,  Ill.  1255, 
1256, 129. 

Mt.-Athos,Xeropotamon,  Relief,227 ;  Mosaic, 

48. 


INDEX 


374 

Moutier-St.-Jean,  Capitals,  now  in  Cam¬ 
bridge,  Mass.,  Ill.  62-66,  91,  313;  com¬ 
pared  with  Autun,  1 1 5  ;  with  Saulieu,  114f. 

Movement,  Beginning  at  Toulouse,  St.-Ser- 
nin,  Tympanum,  136. 

Mozat,  Capital  in  Church,  Ill.  1224.-122’/, 
237;  Tympanum,  west  facade,  south  tran¬ 
sept,  Ill.  1223,  236,  237. 

Munich,  Kgl.  Hof~und  Stiftsbibliotek,  Book- 
cover  of  Kaiser  Arnulf,  29,  35 ;  Perikopen- 
buch  aus  Passau,  21 ;  von  St.  Erentrud, 
21,97,249,258,274. 

Munster,  Mauritzkirche,  sculpture,  now  in 
Westfalischen  Landesmuseum,  48,  50, 

328 ;  Westfalischen  Landesmuseum,  Sculp¬ 
ture  from  Mauritzkirche,  48,  50,  328. 

Music,  Ill.  7,  77f. 

Musicians,  Ill.  338;  of  David,  Ill.  361,  562. 

Mzchet,  Tympanum,  20,  74,  185. 

Najera,  Pilgrimage  Road,  175,  179;  Santa 
Maria  la  Real,  Tomb  of  Dona  Blanca,  Ill. 
719, 241. 

Nantua,  Lintel,  western.  Ill.  I2i4.a,  1 57,  281, 
284,  294,  295 ;  Portal,  (destroyed),  140. 

Nara,  Museum,  Statue  of  Kwannon,  97; 
Sculptures,  119;  Temple  Kofuku-ji,  Statue 
of  Shindatsura-Taisho,  53. 

Narbonne,  Cathedrale,  Ivory,  28 ;  Pilgrimage 
Road,  175,  179,  183,  195;  Stained  glass, 
195:  St.-Just,  Holy-water  basin,  now  at 
Toulouse  Museum,  Ill.  4.86,  487,  248. 

Narni,  Palazzo  Municipale,  Relief,  65. 

Natagis,  Ill.  1141. 

Nativity,  {see  Christ). 

Nazareth,  Church  of  the  Annunciation,  164; 
Construction  of,  105. 

Nebuchadnezzar,  III.  956,  938,  1132,  321 ; 
Dream  of,  111.  J76. 

Neuilly-en-Donjon,  Tympanum,  western.  Ill. 
9S,94,  121,313. 

Neuvy-St.-Sepulchre,  Influence  of  Jerusalem, 
Church  of  the  Holy  Sepulchre,  185. 

Nevers,  Musee  de  la  Porte  du  Croux,  Frag¬ 
ments  .4om  St.-Sauveur,  Ill.  126-133,  122 : 
St. -Etienne,  6,  9;  Pilgrimage  Road,  175, 
180;  St.-Sauveur,  Capitals,  now  in  Musee, 
Ill.  126-132,  122f. ;  Relation  to  Malmes¬ 
bury,  161 ;  Tympanum,  now  in  Musee,  Ill. 

133.  122f. 

New  York,  Metropolitan  Museum  of  Art, 
Book-cover  from  Jaca,  Catedral,  Ill.  319, 
37,  41,  48,  52;  Byzantine  ivory  caskets, 
313;  Byzantine  ivory,  XI  century,  272; 
Byzantine  ivory  panels,  283  ;  Capitals  from 
.St. -Pons,  III.  I2J2,  1273;  Crucifix,  Ivory, 
III.  7/0,  38,  41f.,  43,  52,  54,  70; 
Ivory  plaque,  (No.i),  III.  663,  39f. ;  Ivory 
plaque,  (No.  2),  Ill.  70Q,  42f.,  49; 


Ivory  relief,  small,  39 :  Morgan  Library, 
Gospels  of  the  Countess  Matilda,  49,  51, 
53,  69;  Manuscript  of  XII  century,  69. 

Nicodemo,  Ill.  180, 330. 

Nicolo,  Ill.  244,  243,  133,  144,  145,  146,  147, 
148,  1 81,  183,  219,  220,  225f.,  237,  241, 
244,  25  s,  296,  299,  325,  333.  _ 

Nimes,  Cathedrale,  Facade,  Frieze,  Ill.  1378- 
1383,  26,  300,  336;  Pilgrimage  Road,  175, 
180;  School  of  Provence,  181. 

Noah,  Ill.  1313;  his  Ark,  Ill.  1379;  his  Sons 
build  the  Ark,  Ill.  398;  his  Sons  make 
Wine,  Ill.  396. 

Noli  me  tangere.  Ill.  30,  33,  78,  463,  709, 
1063, 42f. 

Nonantola,  Influence  of  Lombard  sculpture, 
1 83 ;  Reliquary,  1 89. 

November,  Ill.  381, 1443. 

Novgorod,  Bronze  Doors,  255. 

Noya,  San  Martin,  264. 

Noyon,  Morienval  Gospel,  45. 

October,  Ill.  380, 383. 

Oloron-Ste.-Marie,  Pilgrimage  Road,  179; 
Tympanum,  western.  Ill.  461,  143,  161, 

259. 

Orense,  Catedral,  Porch,  western.  Ill.  837- 
839,  263;  Portal,  northern.  Ill.  833,  834, 
263 ;  western,  lU.  832,  833, 836,  263,  326. 

Orleans,  Musee  Historique,  Fragment  of 
Altar-frontal,  from  Briare,  Ill.  1434.,  207; 
Pilgrimage  Road,  179;  Ste.-Croix,  193. 

Osnabriick,  Ivory  Box,  XI  century,  (first 
half),  75. 

Othonian  Miniatures,  18. 

Otranto,  Capitals,  in,  115- 

Oviedo,  Camara  Santa,  Area  Santa,  Ill.  636- 
660,  15,  35,  46,  48,  SI,  52,  73,  96,  208,  209, 
284,  303;  compared  with  Charlieu,  7 if.; 
Capital  of  Respond,  Ill.  819,  26J.f. ;  Re¬ 
spond,  Ill.  811-818,  261f.,  263 ;  Catedral, 
Relief  in  Cloister,  Ill.  869,  870,  260;  Pil¬ 
grimage  Road,  179,  192;  Relation  to 
Santillana  del  Mar,  181. 

Owl,  Ill.  23. 

Oxford,  Bodleian  Library,  Gospels,  100. 

Ozias,  Ill.  1312. 

Palencia,  Catedral,  Moorish  Box,  now  in 
Madrid,  40. 

Palermo,  Cappella  Palatina,  Mosaics,  XII 
century,  314;  Martorana,  Mosaics,  XII 
century,  3 1 4. 

Pamplona,  Catedral,  Capital  in  Cloister, 
Ill.  720;  Ivory  Casket,  40,  64,  69,  328  ; 
Pilgrimage  Road,  175,  179,  195. 

Parable  of  the  Good  Samaritan,  Ill.  280. 

Paradise,  Rivers  of.  Ill.  5,  22. 

Paray-le-Monial,  Musee  Eucharistique, 


INDEX 


Sculptures  from  Anzy-le-Duc,  Ill.  g8,  gg, 
112,  130. 

Paris,  Bibliotheque  Nationale,  Apocalypse  of 
St.-Sever,  190;  Benedictional,  45,  100; 
Bibles,  of  Charles  the  Bald,  21 ;  of  Roda, 
29;  Byzantine  miniature,  X  century,  190; 
Codice  Sinopense,  Asia  Minor  Manu¬ 
script,  VI  century,  324 ;  German  ivories  and 
miniatures,  X  century,  314;  Gospels  of 
St.-Medard  of  Soissons,  46,  152;  Horse¬ 
man,  188 ;  Ivories,  Ada  Group,  X  century, 
46;  Triptychs,  189,  313;  Psalter,  21 ;  Tet- 
revangile,  190:  Musee  Cluny,  Altar-fron¬ 
tal,  from  Basel,  208;  Apostles  Cycle,  192; 
Book-cover,  X  century,  Echternach  Mas¬ 
ter,  325  ;  Echternach  Ivory,  46,  161 ;  Jamb 
sculpture  from  Notre-Dame,  265 ;  Musee 
du  Louvre,  Altar,  portable,  school  of  Co¬ 
logne,  66 ;  Altar-frontal,  from  Carriere-St.- 
Denis,  Ill.  /^<?5,  164;  Barberini 

Ivory,  75,  188,  189;  Bible  of  Charles-le- 
Chauve,  no;  Capital  from  Ste.-Gene- 
vieve.  Ill.  1488;  Column  from  Coulombs, 
Ill.  1 4^  1-14^2-,  79;  Courajod  Crucifix,  Ill. 
630,  631 ;  Fragment  of  Pier  from  Chalons- 
sur-Marne,  Ill.  1483,  221 ;  Harbeville  Trip¬ 
tych,  161;  Heads,  stone.  Ill.  1458,  I45g; 
Jamb  sculpture  from  Corbeil,  Notre-Dame, 
Ill.  1463,  1468;  Macedonian  Relief,  190; 
Metz  Group,  Ivories,  75;  Triptych,  X 
century,  313;  Virgin,  in  wood.  Ill.  1484: 
Notre-Dame,  Gallery,  Capitals,  104;  Jamb 
sculptures,  now  in  Musee  Cluny,  265 ; 
Porte-Ste.-Anne,  262 ;  Ste.-Genevieve, 
Capital,  now  in  Musee  du  Louvre,  Ill. 
1488:  St.-Germain-des-Pres,  Pilgrimage 
Road,  179;  St.-Jacques,  Pilgrimage  Road, 
179  :St.-Julien-le-Pauvre,Pilgrimage  Road, 
175, 179- 

Parma,  Art  of  Benedetto,  183;  Battistero, 
Sculptures,  4,  277. 

Parthenay,  Notre-Dame-de-la-Couldre,  Capi¬ 
tal,  Ill.  1043, 1046,  274, 334f.,  340 ;  Fagade, 
western.  Ill.  1032-1033,  51, 142,  286, 334f. ; 
Influence  of  Jerusalem,  Church  of  the  Holy 
Sepulchre,  185;  Portal,  central.  Capitals, 
Ill.  1043;  Portal,  western.  Ill.  1048-1031 , 
143,  334f . ;  Pilgrimage  Road,  179;  Rela¬ 
tion  to  Chartres,  335f. ;  School  of  the  West, 
181. 

Parthenay-le-Vieux,  Fagade,  western.  Ill. 
g24,  g23,  190,  341. 

Patriarchs,  Ill.  1330, 1434, 1303,  165. 

Pavia,  Museo  Civico,  Tomb  of  Teodelinda, 
14:  neighbourhood  of.  Influence  on  St.- 
Jouin-de-Marne,  315:  San  Giovanni  in 
Borgo,  Capitals,  65  :  San  Michele,  Relation 
to  Saintes,  and  Ste.-Marie-des-Dames,  331 ; 
Sculpture,  106  :  San  Stefano,  Relief,  65. 


375 

Peasant  warming  his  Socks  by  the  Fire,  Ill.  .?/o. 

Pebbles,  Flame-shaped,  50. 

Pedimented  Lintel,  236. 

Pentateuch,  Scenes  from.  Ill.  383. 

Pentecost,  {see  Christ). 

Perelada,  Cloisters,  1 87. 

Perforated  Border,  119. 

Perignac,  Fagade,  western.  Ill.  1018-1024, 
107,341. 

Perigueux,  Pilgrimage  Road,  180,  186,  296; 
St.-Etienne,  Tomb  of  Bishop  Jean,  241 ; 
St.-Front,  7;  Arches,  98;  Tomb  of  St. 
Front,  33f. 

Perpignan,  Vieux-St.-Jean,  Portal,  Ill.  618- 
620,  19,  III,  160,  252;  Tombstone  in 
fagade.  Ill.  634. 

Perrecey-les-Forges,  Lintel,  western.  Ill.  83; 
Priory  dependent  upon  St.-Benoit-sur- 
Loire,  120;  Tympanum,  western.  Ill.  84. 

Pestilence  in  Jerusalem,  Ill.  jdp. 

Petershausen,  Tympanum,  now  at  Karls¬ 
ruhe,  132f. 

Philosophy,  Ill.  1116. 

Phokis,  Mosaics,  48,  49;  St.-Luke,  Mosaic, 
XI  century,  314. 

Piacenza,  Cattedrale,  Lintel,  74;  Lombard 
sculpture,  183;  San  Antonino,  218,  225; 
Work  of  Nicolo,  133,  144,  14S,  146. 

Pianella,  San  Michele,  Lintel,  western.  Ill. 
218, 132 ;  Pulpit,  Ill.  213, 132. 

Pien  Luan,  32. 

Pilate,  Ill.  1322. 

Pilgrim,  Ill.  3g6, 134g,  1330. 

Pilgrimage,  Relation  to  Toulouse,  St.-Sernm, 
205 ;  to  Compostela,  I7if. 

Pisa,  Camposanto,  Fragments,  Ill.  181-183, 
160;  Fresco  of  Benozzo  Gozzoli,  102;  Cat¬ 
tedrale,  185,  293;  Arches,  98;  Choir,  ex¬ 
terior,  south  side.  Ill.  i8g:  Fragments  of 
Pulpit,  now  at  Cagliari,  Ill.  1 86-188,  160, 
202. 

Pistoia,  San  Andrea,  Capitals  and  Lintel,  Ill. 
igi,  ig3,  160,  202;  Impost,  northern,  of 
Portal,  Ill.  ig2,  201 ;  compared  with  St.- 
Gilles,  201  :  San  Bartolommeo  in  Pantano, 
Lintel,  Ill.  igo,  134,  160;  Pulpit,  Ill.  234: 
San  Giovanni  Fuorcivitas,  Lintel,  Ill.  igg, 
157,  160,  281,  294:  San  Pietro  Maggiore, 
Lintel,  Ill.  228,  134. 

Pla  de  Cubra,  San  Ramon,  Portal,  southern, 
III  632. 

Plain-song,  Tones  of.  III.  3,  8. 

Plock,  Bronze  Doors,  of  Novgorod,  came 
from,  255. 

Poitiers,  Bibliotheque  Municipale,  Manu¬ 
script,  Life  of  Ste.  Radegonde,  316 ;  Musee 
des  Antiquaires  de  I’Ouest,  Capital,  from 
St.-Hilaire,  Ill.  gi3;  Fragments,  said  to 
come  from  St.-Benolt,  Ill.  1132,  Ii33'> 


INDEX 


376 

339 ;  Relief  from  St.-Maixent,  341 ;  Statue 
of  Minerva,  72;  “Tombeau  de  St.-Hilaire,” 
Cast  of,  Ill.  IIJ4:  Montierneuf,  6; 
Pilgrimage  Road,  175 :  Notre-Dame-la- 
Grande,  Facade,  western.  Ill.  g^i-g62, 106, 
254, 320f.,  323f.,  324, 327, 341 :  Pilgrimage 
Road,  179, 186 :  St.-Hilaire,  3  ;  Capital,  Ill. 
gij,  9/5,  329;  Figures  now  enwalled  in 
Gable  of  north  transept,  23;  Pilgrimage 
Road,  175;  Relief  in  transept  Gable,  Ill. 
gi2,  g/4;  Rib  vaults,  139 :  St.-Hilaire-la- 
Celle,  “Tombeau  de  St.  Hilaire,”  Ill.  11J4, 
341  :  St.-Jean,  Frescos,  191 :  Ste.-Rade- 
gonde,  5;  Capital  of  Ambulatory,  Ill.  gog~ 
9//,  304 ;  Relief  in  vestibule.  Ill.  907,  go8, 
24, 147, 304;  School  of  the  West,  181. 

Pompain,  Portal,  western,  Ill.  10/8. 

Pontida,  Psychostasy,  192:  Relation  to  Cal- 
venzano,  145:  Tomb  of  San  Alberto,  64; 
compared  with  Bari,  San  Niccola,  Porta 
dei  Leoni,  62 ;  with  Bari  Throne,  61. 

Pont-l’Abbe-d’Arnoult,  Facade,  western. 
Ill.  fooj,  /005,  333 ;  Tympanum,  central. 
Ill.  /004. 

Prehistoric  Cave-Paintings,  14. 

Presentation,  (see  Christ). 

Prisoner,  A  Liberated,  Ill.  2ij. 

Prophets,  Ill.  /6,  40, 114,  7/5,  7/7,  208,  2ogy 
219,365,366,  474,  477,  490,  49^,  5^9, 561, 
686,  687,  748,  755,  756,  778,  779,  780,  782, 
820,  821,  842,  853,  854,  858, 871,  894,  931, 
932,  1010,  1039,  1087,  1120,  1122,  1123, 
1125,  1127,  1153,  1154,  1155,  1156,  1445, 
1460-1462,  1495,  1498,  1507,  1512,  1513; 
holding  scrolls,  3^f. 

Prophetess,  111.  1503. 

Provencal  School,  267!. 

Provins,  St.-Ayoul,  Portal,  western.  Ill. 
1490,  1491,  140;  Tympanum,  Influence  of 
Chartres,  135;  St.-Quiriace,  Tympanum, 
western.  Fragment,  Ill.  1496, 140. 

Pseudo-Callistine  Codex,  lyif. 

Pseudo-Pope  Leo,  Death  of.  Ill.  143. 

Psychomachia,  111.  9^7,  965,  967,  968,  971, 

977,  9^0,  9^4,  9S5,  997,  99^,  999,  ^000, 
1004,  1007,  loii,  1012,  J013,  10J9,  1020, 
1021,  1041,  1042,  1044,  1048,  1050,  1051, 
1058, 1122, 1124, 1125, 1180, 1182. 

Psychostasy,  Ill.  918, 1367,  192. 

Puente  La  Reina,  Pilgrimage  Road,  179. 

Puigcerda,  Pilgrimage  Road,  182. 

Quail,  ]\\.  586,387,590. 

Queen  of  Sheba,  Ill.  455,  475,  839,  842,  843, 
871,  J231,  1233,  1338,  1464,  1467,  1478, 

7493,  51- 

Quimperl^,  Ste.-Croix,  3  ;  Influence  of  Jeru¬ 
salem,  Church  of  the  Holy  Sepulchre,  185 ; 
Rib  Vault,  139,  186. 


Ratisbon,  (see  Regensburg). 

Ratisbonne,  (see  Regensburg). 

Ravenna,  Archeological  Museum,  Ivory 
Book-cover,  21 ;  Murano  Ivory,  75 ;  Palace 
of  Theodoric,  191;  San  Pier  Crisologo, 
Mosaic,  VI  century,  313;  San  Vitale,  Mo¬ 
saics,  VI  century,  313. 

Regensburg,  St.  Emmeran,  Codex  Aureus, 
310;  Reliefs,  Ill.  1279-1281,  33,  45,  47,  48, 
52,  53,  55,  72,  303;  St.  Jacob,  257,  336; 
Schottenkirche,  Facade,  219. 

Reichenau,  Oberzell,  232;  School,  Perikopen- 
buch  Kaiser  Heinrichs  II,  274, 309 ;  School, 
no. 

Reims,  Cathedrale,  “Apostles  Motif,”  192; 
Influence  of  Bamberg,  266 ;  of  Santiago  de 
Compostela,  265^;  Methods  of  placing 
sculpture,  107;  Portal,  central,  western. 
Ill.  829a. 

Resurrection,  The,  (see  Christ) ;  of  the  Dead, 
Ill.  289, 398,  402. 

Revenga,  Eremita,  Capital,  65. 

Rib  Vaults,  139,  186. 

Rieux-Minervois,  Capital,  Ill.  1404,  94;  Pil¬ 
grimage  Road,  179. 

Ripoll,  Santa  Maria,  Cloisters,  47,  187;  Capi¬ 
tals,  Ill.  394,  393;  Pilgrimage  Road,  182; 
Portal,  western,  fW-  373-383 ;  Sculptures  of 
facade,  III.  360-374,  5^-593,  54^-,  HJ, 
160,  252,  255,  336. 

Roberto,  330. 

Roboam,  Ill.  7^72. 

Rocamadour,  Pilgrimage  Road,  180. 

Rochester,  Tympanum,  341 ;  derived  from 
Cluny,  140. 

Rock  in  Horeb,  Ill.  389. 

Roda,  Sant  Pere,  Cloisters,  187. 

Rodolphus,  38. 

Rogerius,  Bronze  Doors  at  Canosa,  269. 

Roman  Sculpture,  Ill.  316. 

Romans,  St.-Barnard,  Capital  of  nave.  Ill. 
1338;  Holy-water  Basin,  299;  Portal, 
western.  Ill.  1334-1337,  io3.  275, 276,  277, 
294,  297,  298;  Capitals  of.  Ill.  1336, 
^337- 

Rome,  Museo  Kirchiano,  Byzantine  casket, 
IX  century,  270,  283,  327:  San  Clemente, 
Apse  Arch,  108;  Mosaic,  326;  Fresco  of 
lower  church,  48,  52,  53,  87,  96,  97:  San 
Giovanni  in  Laterano,  Apse  Mosaic,  3^3  • 
San  Paolo  f.  1.  m..  Arch,  108 ;  of  triumph, 
142,313;  Bible,  21 ;  Frescos,  IV-V  century, 
313:  S.  Prassede,  142;  Arch,  108;  Chapel 
of  San  Zeno,  Fagade,  Mosaic,  IX  century, 
313:  Santa  Maria  Antiqua,  Horseman, 
1 89 ;  Santa  Maria  in  Trastevere,  Apse,  108, 
142;  Santi  Quattro  Coronati,  Cloisters, 
1 87  :  Statue  of  Marcus  Aurelius,  1 87  :  Vati¬ 
can,  Barberini  Library,  Italian  Ivory,  XII 


INDEX 


377 


century,  314;  Gospel,  South  Anglo-Saxon, 
IX  century,  325;  Bible  of  Farfa,  255; 
Bible  of  San  Paolo,  97 ;  Byzantine  enamel 
box,  313;  Byzantine  Ivory  Triptych,  X 
century,  313;  Gospels  of  Lorsch,  46,  152; 
Gospel,  South  Anglo-Saxon,  21 ;  Manu¬ 
script,  Greek,  190. 

Roncevaux,  Pilgrimage  Road,  179. 

Rossano,  Codice  Purpureo,  324. 

Rotbertus,  Ill.  ///p. 

Rotgerius,  Beatus,  Abbas, 

Rouen,  Museum,  Ivory,  XI  century,  (first 
half),  75 ;  Missal,  99,  100,  284. 

Rougement,  Ill.  /50. 

Ruffec,  Fagade,  western.  Ill.  I02§-I02g,  341. 

Rutigliano,  Lintel,  western.  Ill.  /dj,  i6§,  15, 
133 ;  Relief  over  Portal,  western.  Ill.  164, 
1 5 ;  Tympanum,  northern.  Ill.  25^. 

Sacrifice,  of  the  Ancient  Law,  Ill.  4g4; 
according  to  the  Old  Testament,  Ill.  no; 
of  Bread,  in  the  Ancient  Law,  Ill.  4J, 
I2yi;  of  Isaac,  Ill.  lo,  166,  igs,  jjj, 
352,  575y  6go,  6gg,  y6/,  1046,  1165,  1210, 
i22g. 

Sagra  San  Michele,  Lombard  Sculpture,  183 ; 
Work  of  Nicolo,  226,  255. 

Sahagun,  Abadia,  Capital,  now  in  Leon, 
Museo  San  Marcos,  Ill.  y68,  253 ;  Pilgrim¬ 
age  Road,  175, 179 ;  Relief,  now  at  Madrid, 
Museo  Arquelogico,  Ill.  770,  57f.,  72,  303, 
304 ;  Sculptured  Colonnettes,  now  at  Leon, 
Museo  San  Marcos,  Ill.  7dp;  Sculptured 
Column,  now  in  Leon,  Museo  San  Marcos, 
Ill.  77/. 

Saints,  Ill.  g8,  124,  125,  303-303,  307,  328, 
381, 382, 383, 3g7,  436,  4g8,  4gg,  300, 313, 
514, 564, 584-587,  592,  71 1,  714,  860,  883, 
884, 883, 886, 88g,  goo,  g2g,  g30,  gyg,  1004, 
1012,  1013,  1016,  io3g,  1071,  1087,  1088, 
ii4g,  1223, 1248;  Death  of  a  Saint,  Ill.  630. 

St.  Aethelwold,  Benedictional  of,  45, 

St. -Albans,  Abbey,  83. 

St.  Amand,  Ill.  g4i. 

St.-Amand-de-Boixe,  Reliefs  of  facade,  west¬ 
ern,  Ill.  g4i-g43, 4, 305f.,  314, 321 ;  Portal, 
western.  Ill.  1133,  330. 

St.-Amour,  Relief  in  Church,  Ill.  106,  27, 1 19, 
120. 

St.-Andre-de-Sorrede,  Fragment,  Ill.  317, 
20;  Lintel,  western.  Ill.  314,  313,  15,  20, 

28,74,133- 

St.  Andrew,  Ill.  i4g,  47g,  68/,  703, 837, 1373, 
1374,  21 5,  217 ;  Crucifixion  of.  Ill.  I26g. 

St.  Anne,  Ill.  638. 

St.  Anthony,  Ill.  42,  gi ;  assailed  by  Dae¬ 
mons,  Ill.  42;  and  the  Faun,  Ill.  gi. 

St.-Antonin,  Ancien  H6tel-de-Ville,  Ill.  338, 
359,  198,  219f.,  337. 


St.  Ausone,  Ill.  iog3- 

St.  Aventin,  arrested.  Ill.  507,-  Body  of,  found 
by  a  Bull,  Ill.  5/0,-  Martyrdom  of.  Ill.  50p. 

St. -Aventin,  Holy-water  basin.  Ill.  31 1 ;  Por¬ 
tal,  southern,  Ill.  507;  Reliefs  in  south  wall, 
111.509,5/0,  198,  245;  Tympanum,  south¬ 
ern,  111.505,  140,  198,  245. 

St.  Bartholomew,  Ill.  273,  707,  814,  gg3,  gg6, 

2303,23/5,2369-  ,  . 

St.  Benedict,  Ill.  620, 1420 ;  Translation  of  the 
Relics  of.  Ill.  1521, 1322. 

St.  Benigne,  Ill.  144. 

St.-Benoit-du-Sault,  Statues  now  in  Musee 
Berry,  Bourges,  Ill.  1234, 1233. 

St.-Benoit-sur-Loire,  Fragments  of  Altar- 
frontal,  Ill.  1421,  1422,  164,  208;  Capitals, 
of  Choir,  Ill.  1418;  of  narthex.  Ill.  1414- 
1419,  47,  94;  of  Triforium,  Ill.  1420;  Col¬ 
umns,  83 ;  Lintel,  northern.  Ill.  1321, 1322, 
253;  Pilgrimage  Road,  175  ;  Portal,  north¬ 
ern,  Ill.  1323-1327, 253 ;  Priory  of  Perrecey- 
les-Forges,  dependent  on,  120.  Tympanum, 
northern,  Ill.  1319, 1320,  140,  253. 

St.  Bernard,  222. 

St.  Bertrand,  \\\.  323-323. 

St.-Bertrand-de-Comminges,  Cloisters,  187; 
Capital  of.  Ill.  4g6,  4g7;  Pillar  of.  Ill.  4g2- 
4g3,  160,  221,  243,  245;  Lintel,  western, 
111.526,  198  ;  Pilgrimage  Road,  179 ;  Sculp¬ 
tures,  239;  Tympanum,  western.  Ill.  525- 

325,  134,  198. 

St.-Bonnet-la-Riviere,  Influence  of  Jeru¬ 
salem,  Church  of  the  Holy  Sepulchre,  185.. 

St.  Cannute,  Ill.  1283. 

St.  Catherine,  Ill.  1004,  1013. 

St.-Chamant,  Tympanum,  western.  Ill.  1276, 
132f.,  134. 

St.  Clement,  Ill.  2/9,  220;  Translation  of  the 
Relics  of.  Ill.  2/9, 220. 

St.  Cornelius,  Ill.  2/9,  220. 

St.-Denis,  Abbaye,  10,  13,  222f. ;  Adossed 
Statues,  Influence  on  Chartres,  289;  Capi¬ 
tal  of  Crypt,  Ill.  1433,  1436;  Choir,  83; 
Columns,  (intended),  83 ;  Influence  on 
work  of  Nicolo  at  Verona,  San  Zeno,  148 ;  on 
Toulouse,  St.-Etienne,  jamb  sculpture 
from  the  chapter-house,  241 ;  Jamb  sculp¬ 
tures,  242;  Mosaics,  224;  Motive  of 
Prophets  holding  Scrolls,  324;  Pilgrimage 
Road,  175,  187;  Portal,  central.  Ill.  1439- 
2442, 134, 143, 156,  221,  222,  233,  252, 320, 
340 ;  northern.  Ill.  1437, 1438,  90,  221,  320, 
340;  southern.  Ill.  1443,  1444,  221,  320, 
340 ;  Destroyed  sculptures  of  fagade,  west¬ 
ern,  Ill.  1443-1437,  221,  261,  320,  340;  of 
Portal,  northern.  Ill.  1434;  Voussures,  In¬ 
fluence  on  Ripoll,  255, 

St.-Denis  Master,  225. 

St.  Dionysus,  Ill.  1282. 


INDEX 


378 

St.  Durand,  Ill.  262^  264. 

St.  Emmeran,  Ill.  1281. 

St.  Eusice’s  Sheep  guarded  by  Wolves,  Ill. 

1082. 

St.  Eustace,  Ill.  J2. 

St.-Feliu-d’Amont,  Tympanum,  southern.  Ill. 
5^5,20, 133. 

St.-Gabriel,  Fagade,  western.  Relief,  Ill.  I2()i. 
St.-Gallen,  Gospel,  100. 
St.-Genis-des-Fontaines,  Lintel,  western, 
Ill-  i/J,  15,  16,  19f.,  23,  27f.,  74,  133; 
Relief,  sepulchral,  in  fag ade,  Ill.  621, 622,160. 
St.-Genou,  Capitals,  104. 

St.  George,  Ill.  2^0;  and  the  Dragon,  Ill.  2g. 
St.-Georges-de-Bocherville,  221. 
St.-Gildas-de-Rhuis,  Apse,  Relief,  65. 
St.-Gilles,  Destroyed  Altar,  142,  207;  Archi¬ 
trave,  near  Portal,  central,  ill.  IJ2J;  Choir, 
Rib  Vaults,  139;  Fagade,  western.  Ill. 
IJ02-IJ28;  (northern  end),  \\\.  Ijg2-ijg6, 
290f.,  291,  292,  296,  301,  302;  sculptures 
compared  with  Angouleme,  273f. ;  with 
Beaucaire  Tympanum,  277f.,  278 ;  Frag¬ 
ment  now  in  ruins  of  Choir,  Ill.  132^,  114 ; 
Frieze,  7,  25,  238;  compared  with  Beau¬ 
caire  Frieze,  280f.,  281,  282:  Frieze,  north 
of  Portal,  central.  Ill.  1315-1317,  69,  249, 
273f.,  290,  294;  Frieze,  south  of  Portal, 
central.  Ill.  131(3-1322,  273f.,  280,  300, 
336 ;  Frieze  of  Portal,  northern.  Ill.  /J<?7, 
290;  Frieze  of  Portal,  southern.  Ill.  1390, 

290,  302 :  Lintel,  central.  Ill.  1318,  273f. ; 
Lintel,  northern.  Ill.  1388,  1389,  290 :  Pil¬ 
grimage  Road,  175,  180,  187:  Sculptures 
near  Portal,  central.  Ill.  1304-1328,  47,  51, 
140,  165,  249,  273f.,  274,  275,  276,  277, 
278, 279, 280, 281 , 282, 283,  284 ;  Reliefs  near 
Portal,  central.  Ill.  1305, 1312-1314, 1324, 
1323,  273f.,  i-jg,  291 ;  Statues  near  Portal, 
central.  Ill.  1304,  1306-1311,  250,  273f., 
297,  325  ;  Sculptures  near  Portal,  northern. 
Ill.  1302, 1303,  273f.,  291 ;  Sculptures  near 
Portal,  southern,  Ill.  1314,  273f. ;  Sculp¬ 
tures  of  Portals,  side.  Relation  to  St.- 
Junien,  Tomb,  156;  Relation  (in  general), 
to  Bari  Throne,  59f. ;  Beaucaire,  250;  Bor- 
go  San  Donnino,  290;  Chartres,  west 
facade,  285f. ;  Monopoli  Archivolt,  59f. ; 
Pistoia,  San  Andrea,  201 ;  St.-Junien,  292: 
School  of  Provence ;  Tympanum,  northern. 
Ill.  1386,  246!.,  290,  291, 302;  Tympanum, 
southern.  III.  1383,  290,  292,  300;  Tym¬ 
panum  and  Lintel,  southern.  Ill.  1391, 
257,  290:  Vaults  of  Crypt,  Key-stone,  Ill. 

1330- 

St.-Gilles  Master,  28of.,  281,  283,  284,  285f., 

291. 

St.-Guilhem-le-Desert,  Altar-frontal,  Ill. 
1300;  Apse,  3;  Lombard  Influence,  186; 


Capital,  now  at  Bryn  Athyn,  Penn.,  Ill. 
1403;  Fragment,  now  in  Church,  Ill.  1399, 
57,  203,  279;  Fragments,  now  in  Musee 
Archeologique,  Montpellier,  Ill.  1400- 
1402,  143,  265;  Fragments,  now  in  Uni¬ 
versity,  Montpellier,  Ill.  1397,  1398,  57, 
203  :  Pilgrimage  Road,  179 :  School  of  Pro¬ 
vence,  1 81. 

St.  Helena,  Ill.  947, 1008. 

St.  Hilaire,  Ill.  143,  913,  932,  1037,  1091, 
1134;  arrested.  Ill.  1289;  before  the  Coun¬ 
cil,  Ill.  143;  Death  of.  Ill.  913, 1134;  En¬ 
tombment  of.  Ill.  1091. 

St.-Hilaire,  Area,  Relation  to  Beaucaire 
Frieze,  271 ;  Tombeau  de  St.  Hilaire,  Ill. 
1289, 1290, 270f.,  271, 290. 

St.  Isidore,  Ill.  696,  698. 

St.  Jacob,  257. 

St.  James,  Ill.  7/0.  263,311,  676,  703, 

712,  713,  812, 830, 871,894, 893, 993, 1 1 31, 
^334,  ^349,  ^350,  1369, 1370,  1422,  1423, 
1 12,  192,  204,  214,  217. 

St.  James  the  Less,  Ill.  834,  837, 1132, 1303, 

1310, 1315,  1352.  . 

St.-Jean-d’Angely,  Pilgrimage  Road,  175- 

St.  John,  Ill.  13,  no,  132, 180,  238,342, 384, 
430,  438,  439,  460,  491, 301, 319,  619,  71 1, 
715,  716,  766,  793,  834,  861,  871,  872,  949, 
986,  990,  1213,  1233,  1277,  1306,  1307, 
^335, 1344,  ^31^9,  1371,  H92, 1514,  J520, 
1323,  217;  the  Baptist,  Ill.  48a,  390,  840, 
1163,  1307;  Passion  of.  Ill.  283;  the  Evan¬ 
gelist,  1)1.  ^<59,  837, 1410. 

St.  Joseph,  Ill.  16,343,346,  372,304,  1113, 
1 1 14;  Angel  appears  to,  IW.  372, 304, 338, 

7S3,  7179^  125. 

St.-Jouin-de-Marne,  6;  Fagade,  western. 
Ill.  947-930,  189,  190,  300,  315f.,  316,  321, 
328;  Gable,  Ill.  946,  313,  315,  321 ;  Influ¬ 
ence  of  Pavia,  Neighbourhood  of,  315; 
Pilgrimage  Road,  179. 

St.-Julien-de-Jonzy,  Tympanum,  western. 
Ill.  in,  122,  124 

St.-Junien,  Influence  on  St.-Gilles,  292,  300; 
Tomb  of  St.  Junien,  Ill.  430-432,  142,  153, 
156,  207,  245,  249,  251;  Relation  to  St.- 
Gilles,  Portals,  side,  156. 

St.  Lazare,  Ill.  74;  Duke  Hugh  II  offers  the 
new  Cathedral  to.  111.  74. 

St.  Leonard,  Ill.  213. 

St.-Leonard,  Influence  of  Jerusalem,  Church 
of  the  Holy  Sepulchre,  185;  Pilgrimage 
Road,  180. 

St.  Loup,  Ill.  1494;  receives  a  precious  Stone 
from  Heaven,  Ill.  1494',  Scenes  from  Life  of. 
Ill.  1492. 

St.-Loup-de-Naud,  Influence  on  Sangiiesa, 
254;  Portal,  western,  Ill.  1493-1493;  Tym¬ 
panum,  western.  Ill.  1492,  135,  140,  146. 


INDEX 


St,  Luke,  Ill.  240,  241,342,  4g2,  4^4,  4g3, 
502,587,  go6,  gjo,  1520,  48,  49. 

St.-Macaire,  Pilgrimage  Road,  175. 

St.-Maixent,  Relief  of  Saint,  now  in  Musee 
des  Antiquaires  de  I’Ouest,  Poitiers,  341. 

St.  Mark,  Ill.  340,  385,  4g5,  4g7,  501,  557, 
584, 767,  g30,  i33g,  1502,  i5ig. 

St.  Martha,  Ill.  148. 

St.  Martin,  Ill.  757,  77g,  78g,  g53,  1040 ; 
Apotheosis  of.  Ill.  1415;  gives  half  his  Coat 
to  the  Beggar,  Ill.  78g;  resuscitates  a  dead 
Youth,  Ill.  78g;  Vision  of.  Ill.  78g. 

St.-Martin-de-Londres,  Pilgrimage  Road, 
186. 

St.  Matthew,  Ill.  13,  237,  238,  243,  272,340, 
458,  4g2,  4g3, 557, 584,  706,  800,  802,  857, 
1302, 1355, 1356, 15/g. 

St.  Mathias,  Ill.  705. 

St.-Menoux,  Capitals,  104;  Fragments,  in 
narthex,  Ill.  1258, 129 ;  in  Porch,  Ill.  1257, 
129;  now  in  Moulins  Museum,  ill. 
i25g. 

St.  Michael,  Ill.  20,  216,  230,  628,  712,  760, 
783,  1012,  io3g,  1040,  1075,  ii3g,  1141, 
1248, 1405;  and  the  Dragon,  Ill.  628,  783, 
862,  1006,  I3g2,  I3g3;  weighing  Souls,  Ill. 
7^3-. 

St.-Michel,  Tympanum,  Ill.  1006,  308,  316, 

317-. 

St.-Michel-de-Cuxa,  Capital,  now  at  Bryn 
Athyn,  Penn.,  Ill.  557a ;  Fragments  of  sculp¬ 
ture,  111.55(5-559,  18,  19,  218,  255;  Reliefs 
compared  with  Achthamar,  18. 

St.  Nectaire,  and  the  Devil,  Ill.  iig5;  or¬ 
dained,  Ill. Iig4',  Resurrection  of.  111.  Iig6, 
iig8. 

St.-Nectaire,  Capitals  of  Ambulatory,  Ill. 
iigo-1204,  50,  94,  149,  237. 

St.  Nicholas,  Ill.  224,  225,  87g,  1128;  Dieu- 
donne  transported  by,  ill.  225;  Infant, 
stands  upright  in  his  Bath,  Ill.  224;  offi¬ 
ciating,  Ill.  87g. 

St.  Odilienberg,  {see  The  Hague,  Nieder- 
landischen  Museum),  220. 

St.  Ours,  Ill.  1 1 II,  1 1 18. 

St.-Parize-le-Chatel,  capital  of  Crypt,  Ill. 
25,  26,  9i,120f.,329. 

St.  Paul,  111.5,5(5, 40, 187, 242, 261, 271,364, 
384,  465,  4gi,  506, 54g,  550, 556, 55g,  573, 
585,  620,  701,  707,  740,  743,  75g,  8/3,  817, 
834,  857,  861,  86g,  871,  872,  881,  gg5, 
logo,  1124,  1217,  1256,  1286,  1288,  1311, 
J335,  ^353,  i373i  ^374,  ^4^6,  I4g3,  217, 
260 ;  a  Prophet  brings  to  the  Mill  of.  Grain 
for  the  Eucharistic  Bread,  Ill.  40,  127; 
Beheadal  of.  Ill.  506,  57g;  Conversion  of. 
Ill.  1360;  Imprisonment  of.  Ill.  579- 

St.  Paul,  Karnthen,  Ivories,  X  century,  75. 

St.-Paul-de-Varax,  Facade  Sculptures,  III. 


379 


86, 87, 8g,  go,  1 22, 336 ;  T ympanum,  south¬ 
ern,  Ill.  9/;  western.  Ill.  88,  141. 

St.  Peter,  Ill.  5,  13, 36,  7g,  85,  87,  no,  132, 
^33, 150, 173^  261,  266,  277,312,348,360, 
3g6,  417,  440,  45g,  465,  4gi,  506, 54g,  550, 
55<5, 558, 572, 577,  6ig,  675,  688,  6gi,  700, 
706,  740,  743,  744,  758, 782,  813,  817,  834, 
857,  861,  86g,  870,  871, 872, 873,  882,  886, 
932,  g33,  938,  945,  949,  952,  g64,  loog. 


1022,  1027,  logo,  nil,  nig,  1123,  1124, 
1143,  1216,  i2iga,  1231,  1277,  1285,  1287, 
1308,  i3og,  1334,  1347,  1348,  i36g,  1371, 
1465,  I4g5,  1523,  204,  217,  260;  Angel 
liberates.  Ill.  79,  47;  Crucifixion  of.  Ill. 
277, 506, 577,  g83, 1005;  denies  Christ,  Ill. 
I2g3;  cuts  off  the  Ear  of  Malchus,  Ill.  85; 
resuscitates  the  dead  Man,  Ill.  87;  and  St. 
John  heal  the  Cripple  before  the  Temple 
Beautiful,  Ill.  132,574;  and  St.  Paul  resus¬ 
citate  the  dead  Youth,  Ill.  36;  and  St. 
Paul  at  the  Tomb,  Ill.  465. 

St.  Petersburg,  Manuscript,  Bede,  100. 

St.  Phebus,  Ill.  2ig,  220. 

St.  Philip,  Ill.  270,  443,708, 1376. 

St.-Pierre,  Musee  Lapidaire,  111.  147,  148, 
149. 

St.-Pierre-le-Moutier,  Tympanum,  northern. 
Ill.  1275,  140,  253. 

St.-Pompain,  Voussures,  Ill.  1058,  107,  333. 

St.-Pons,  Capitals  of  Cloister,  Ill.  1265-1274, 
231',  Pilgrimage  Road,  175;  Two  minor 
Portals,  130;  Relation  to  Morlaas,  161 ; 
Tympanum  of  Ancient  Portal,  Ill.  1147, 
1148. 

St.  Poragie,  Knight  doing  Fealty  to.  Ill.  1482, 
1483.  _  ^ 

St.-Quentm-les-Beauvais,  Sculptured  Colon¬ 
nette,  now  in  Beauvais  Museum,  Ill.  1431- 
1433,  221,  222,  225. 

St.  Raphael,  Ill.  404, 1141. 

St.-Reverien,  Capital  of  Ambulatory,  Ill. 
102,  103,  149;  Portal,  western.  Ill.  100, 
loi,  149. 

St.  Sabina,  Ill.  6g7,  850,  851. 

St.  Saturnin,  Ill.  285;  Martyrdom  of.  Ill. 
285,  i2go. 

St.-Saturnin,  Fagade,  Ill.  1071,  1072,  341 ; 
Pilgrimage  Road,  180. 

St.  Sernin,  Ill.  5/9. 

St.  Simon,  Ill.  13,  267,  268. 

St.  Stephen,  Ill.  77,  250,  275,  347,  422,  506, 
1353,  ^354,  ^359;  Burial  of.  Ill.  1241 ;  Life 
of.  Ill.  422,  423,  426;  Passion  of.  Ill.  1355, 
1359,  1374',  Stoning  of.  Ill.  77,  275,  426, 
506, 1250, 1272, 1 4g8. 

St.-Sulpice-de-Favieres,  Pilgrimage  Road, 
179. 

St.-Symphorien,  Fagade,  western.  Ill.  1007, 
341 ;  Portal,  Ill.  gig,  341. 


INDEX 


3  Bo 

St.  Theodore,  Ill. 

St.  Thomas,  Ill.  434,  436,  460,  814,  002, 1304, 
1315,  273;  Doubting,  IlL  469,  533,  671, 
680,  866, 1351,  38,  47. 

St.  Trophime,  Ill.  1345,  1346,  136^. 

St.  Vincent,  Ill.  15,  6g,  76,  6g6,  og8, 830, 831; 
Body  of,  guarded  by  Crows,  Ill.  76;  Louis 
the  Pious  offers  the  Church  to.  Ill.  13. 

St.-Vivien,  Apse  Sculptures,  Ill.  1083,  1086, 

319- 

Ste.  Foy,  III.  j’pd-jpd’. 

Ste.  Maenance,  Ill.  i^. 

Ste.-Magnance,  Tomb  of  the  Saint,  Ill.  146, 

129. 

Ste.  Radegonde,  Ill.  go8. 

Saintes,  Musee  Archeologique,  Capital,  Ill. 
go6;  Pilgrimage  Road,  179;  St.-Eu trope, 
3,  6;  Capital  of  nave.  Ill.  gi8,  308;  Pil¬ 
grimage  Road,  175,  179,  296;  Ste.-Marie- 
des-Dames,  Portal,  western.  Ill. 

330f.,  331 ;  School  of  the  West,  181. 

Salamanca,  Catedral  Vieja,  Capital  of  Clois¬ 
ter,  Ill.  773,  776,  256;  Pendentive,  Ill.  737, 
313  ;  Springing  of  nave  Vault,  Ill.  736,  738, 
739,  65,  258,  31 1,  312;  Relation  to  San¬ 
tiago  de  Compostela,  181. 

Salamander,  Ill.  131. 

Salerno,  Altar-frontal,  72,  148,  232,  244. 

Salome,  Ill.  733;  Dance  of.  Ill.  &,  248. 

Salon,  St.-Michel,  Tympanum,  western.  Ill. 
1403. 

Salonica,  San  Demetrius,  Mosaics,  VIII 
century,  313 ;  Santa  Sophia,  96. 

Samson,  Ill.  166,  180,  773,  923,  948, 1029, 
1327,  1368,  1312;  and  Delilah,  Ill.  1209, 
1136,  1343;  and  the  Lion,  Ill.  18,  27,  46, 
68,  176,  333,  338,  633,  923,  1136,  1219, 
1228,  1342,  189. 

Samuel,  Ill.  1307. 

San  Aselo,  Ill.  638. 

San  Baudelio,  Relation  to  Aklepat,  Casale 
Monferrato,  Cordoba,  186. 

San  Casciano,  Archivolt  of  lateral  Portal,  Ill. 
222;  of  western  Portal,  Ill.  223. 

San  Clemente  di  Casauria,  {see  Torre  dei 
Passeri). 

San  Cugat  del  Valles,  Cloisters,  187;  Sculp¬ 
tures  representing  the  making  of  capitals, 
102. 

San  Etrocio,  Ill.  638. 

San  Felices,  Ill.  640. 

San  Juan  de  la  Pena,  Capital  of  Cloister, 
HI.  Pilgrimage  Road,  175,  179; 

Relief  in  Panteon  de  los  Reyes,  Ill.  343, 

133- 

San  Juan  de  las  Abadesas,  San  Pablo,  Tym¬ 
panum,  Ill.  349;  Sculpture  in  wood.  Ill. 
629. 

San  Julian  de  Moraime,  220. 


San  Leonardo,  Portal,  northern.  Ill.  213,  216; 
southern.  Ill.  213,  214,  132f. ;  Tympanum, 
southern,  Ill.  214. 

San  Lorenzo,  Sorgenti  di  Volturno,  48. 

San  Miguel  de  Escalada,  Pilgrimage  Road, 
179. 

San  Millan,  Ill.  638-640,  642,  643,  643,  647, 
648,  649;  prays  for  Wood,  Ill.  638;  Build¬ 
ers  of  the  Granary  feasting.  Ill.  639;  put 
asleep  by  an  Angel,  Ill.  640;  received  by 
San  Felices,  Ill.  640;  Blind  healed  at  the 
Tomb  of.  Ill.  641;  Oil  is  miraculously  re¬ 
newed  in  the  Lamp,  Ill.  641 ;  Malefactors, 
seeking  to  burn  the  Bed  of,  kill  themselves. 
Ill.  642;  casts  out  a  Devil  from  a  Deacon, 
Ill.  643;  heals  the  paralytic  Woman,  Bar¬ 
bara,  Ill.  643;  Devil  is  exorcised  from  the 
House  of  Parpalinense,  Ill.  644;  Robbers 
with  stolen  Horse,  Ill.  643;  Two  Miracles 
of  Wine,  Ill.  646;  prophesies  the  Fall  of 
Cantabria,  Ill.  647;  Cantabria  surrenders 
to  King  Leovigildo,  Ill.  647;  is  tempted 
by  and  wrestles  with  the  Devil,  Ill.  648; 
restores  Sight  of  Handmaiden  of  Sicorio, 
Ill.  648;  Death  and  Burial  of.  Ill.  649. 

San  Millan  de  la  Cogolla,  Area  de  San  Mil¬ 
lan,  Ill.  638-649,  36,  37f.,  46,  48,  49,  50, 
51,  69,  96:  Area  de  San  Felices,  Ill.  661- 
664,  41,  45,  46,  48,  50,  51,  III,  209,  227; 
Relation  to  Toulouse,  St.-Sernin,  Ambula¬ 
tory  Sculptures,  209 :  Influence  at  Santo 
Domingo  de  la  Calzada,  195:  Missal,  {see 
Madrid,  Academia  de  Historia),  50. 

San  Pedro  de  la  Cardeha,  Pilgrimage  Road, 

175- 

San  Pedro  de  la  Nave,  Capitals,  69. 

San  Pedro  de  las  Dueiias,  Pilgrimage  Road, 

^75-. 

San  Pietro  di  Civate,  Fresco,  313. 

San  Quirce,  Portal,  northern.  Ill.  7/7,  260. 

San  Quirico  d’Orcia,  218. 

San  Robano,  Rib  Vaults,  186. 

San  Sofronio,  Ill.  638. 

San  Stefano  di  Monopoli,  Tympanum,  west¬ 
ern,  Ill.  230. 

San  Vincenzo,  Frescos,  76. 

Sangiiesa,  Santa  Maria  la  Real,  Porch,  south¬ 
ern,  III.  749,  107;  Portal,  southern.  Ill. 
742-744,  74(>,  74^,  750-752,  135,  252,  254, 
256;  Sculptures  near.  Ill.  733,  734;  Tym¬ 
panum,  southern.  Ill.  747:  Relation  to 
Segovia,  San  Martin,  181. 

Sant  Angelo  in  Formis,  Frescos,  21,  96,  97; 
Lunette,  Fresco,  75,  325;  Porch,  98;  San 
Antimo,  Relation  to  Compostela  Basilica, 
194. 

Sant  Orso,  Cloister,  225. 

Sant’  Agata  dei  Goti,  Capitals,  65. 

Santa  Cristela,  IlL  830, 831. 


INDEX 


Santa  Cruz  de  la  Seros,  Pilgrimage  Road, 
179;  Sarcophagus  of  the  Daughters  of 
Ramiro  I,  now  in  Jaca,  Ill.  5.27,  47. 

Santa  Cruz  de  Rivas,  Capital  of  Chapter- 
House,  65. 

Santa  Maria  del  Sar,  236. 

Santa  Maria  de  Lena,  Pilgrimage  Road,  179. 

Santa  Maria  di  Ronzano,  Rib  Vaults,  186. 

Santa  Marta  de  Terra,  214;  Relation  to  San¬ 
tiago  de  Compostela,  180. 

Santes  Cruz,  Stained  glass,  195. 

Santiago  de  Compostela,  Basilica,  193;  Rela¬ 
tion  to  Toulouse,  St.-Sernin,  Tours,  St.- 
Martin,  Limoges,  St.-Martial,  Cluny, 
Acerenza,  Aversa,  Venosa,  San  Antimo, 
194;  Catedral,  Capitals,  Gothic  in  charac¬ 
ter,  49;  naturalistic,  13;  Fragment,  now 
in  Museum,  Ill.  6g2,  6gj:  Portico  de  la 
Gloria,  Capital  of  trumeau.  Ill.  5jj,  258; 
Pilgrimage  Road,  192,  296;  Portal,  central. 
Ill.  824-834, 143,  258,  259, 260f,,  320,  330; 
northern.  Ill.  820,  821,  161,  253;  southern, 
I11.<?J5,  836, 161,258,2611.,  320;  Respond, 
111.839,840,  51,  161,  253,  258,  261f.,  320; 
Spandrel,  northern.  Ill.  83J,  161, 258,26!!., 
320;  southern.  Ill.  838,  161,  258,  261f., 
32o;Tympanum,  central, Ill.  822,823,  ^53  '• 
Puerta  de  las  Platerias,  Ill.  634-633,  683- 
691,  107,  112,  143,  155,  211f.,  252,  260, 
262,  272,  275, 313,  316 ;  Portal,  eastern.  Ill. 
683, 684,  1 8 ;  western.  Ill.  681, 682,  1 8,  260 ; 
Tympanum,  eastern.  Ill.  680,  25,  135,  204, 
260,  271,  272,  276;  western.  Ill.  638,  639, 
135,  260,  328:  Puerta  Francigena,  140, 
1 43:  Relation  of  Catedral  to,  Toulouse, 
St.-Sernin,  Southern  porch,  260 ;  to  Oloron- 
Ste.-Marie,  259 ;  toConques,  228  ;  to  Irache, 
Armentia,  Ciudad  Rodrigo,  Toro,  Aix, 
Salamanca,  Conques,  Venasque,  Carpen- 
tras,  181 ;  to  Santa  Marta  de  Terra,  180; 
Pilgrimage  Road,  to  Toulouse,  Moissac, 
Conques,  179,  192,  197;  Sculpture  in  Pen- 
dentive.  Ill.  694,  693,  73I,  258 :  Colegio 
San  Jeronimo,  264:  Convent  of  Benedic¬ 
tine  Nuns,  Colonnettes,  Ill.  303-308,  220, 
222 :  Museum,  Fragment  from  Catedral, 
Ill.  692,  693;  Van  Eyck,  Annunciation  at 
St.-Petersburg  represents  transept  in  Cate¬ 
dral,  196. 

Santillana  del  Mar,  Altar,  sculptured.  Ill. 
861,  260;  Cloisters,  187;  Capital  of.  Ill. 
862-866;  Relief  in.  Ill.  863,  868,  247,  260 ; 
Facade,  Ill.  860,  227;  Relation  to  Oviedo, 
181. 

Santo  Domingo  de  la  Calzada,  Pilgrimage 
Road,  179,  195;  Saint  repaired  Pilgrimage 
Road,  178. 

Santo  Domingo  de  Silos,  Altar-frontal,  (see 
Burgos),  47,  156,  208;  Beatus  Manuscript 


381 

of  1109,  56:  Cloister,  44f.,  198;  Capitals 
of.  Ill.  666,  668,  141,  142,  187,  198,  242, 
303 ;  Gothic  in  character,  49 ;  Piers  of.  Ill. 
669-633,  321,  47,  52,  149,  164,  242,  252, 
256,  257,  258,  300,  303  ;  Relief  in,  Ill.  663, 
198,  303  :  Relation  to  Arles,  St.-Trophime, 
299;  to  Cluny,  96;  to  Moissac  Cloister, 
203f.  ;  to  Moissac  Porch,  202;  to  Oviedo 
Apostles,  262;  to  Toulouse,  St.-Sernin, 
Ambulatory  Reliefs,  209 :  Reliefs,  26 ; 
Armour,  21;  representing  the  Saint,  199: 
Reliquary,  now  at  Burgos,  Museum,  251. 
Sant  Pere  de  les  Puelles,  Cloisters,  destroyed, 
187. 

Satan,  Ill.  402. 

Saul,  Ill.  433, 435,577, 1573',  incites  the  Jews 
against  the  Christians,  Ill.  533. 

Saulieu,  St.-Androche,  88;  Capitals  of  nave, 
III-  52,  53,  55-^1,  87,  90,  1 19;  compared 
with  Autun,  1 15;  with  Cluny,  87f. ;  with 
Moutier-St.-Jean,  114f. ;  with  Vezelay, 
1 13  :  Date,  i  i3f. ;  Pilgrimage  Road,  175. 
Sauveterre,  Pilgrimage  Road,  179;  Tym¬ 
panum,  western.  Ill.  488,  489,  140,  161. 
Savigny,  Abbey,  Capital,  94;  Influence  of 
Beaucaire  Frieze,  284. 

Scale  Ornament,  53. 

School  of  the  West,  Relation  to  Chartres,  340. 
Sciapodes,  Ill.  23. 

Sculptures,  carved  before  being  placed,  loif. 
Segovia,  San  Martin,  Facade,  Relief,  Ill.  360, 
198;  Porch,  Vault  sculptures,  258;  Portal, 
western,  Ill.  333,  336,  198;  Relief  in  east 
wall.  Ill.  333,  198;  Relation  to  Sangiiesa, 
180:  San  Miguel,  Facade,  Relief,  Ill.  338, 
759,  198  :  Santa  Cruz,  Influence  of  Jerusa¬ 
lem,  Church  of  the  Holy  Sepulchre,  185. 
Selles-sur-Cher,  Frieze,  lower,  of  Apse,  Ill. 
1033-1082,  lAi. ;  Frieze,  upper,  of  Apse, 
Ill.  1082;  Relief  of  Apse,  Ill.  1033;  Relief 
in  north  wall  of  Choir,  Ill.  1036;  Sculptures 
of  Apse,  Ill.  1034,  1033,  1033-1081,  319, 

336,339- 

Semur-en-Brionnais,  Tympanum,  western, 
\\\.I43,  131- 

Senlis,  Cathedrale,  Jamb  sculptures,  266; 
Pilgrimage  Road,  187;  Portal,  western. 
Ill.  1303-1513,  85,  108,  217,  262,  278,  320; 
Tympanum,  western.  Ill.  1311,  142. 

Sens,  Museum,  Roman  Relief,  46. 

September,  Ill.  380, 1096. 

Sepulveda,  Santiago,  Facade  sculptures.  Ill. 
803,  198 ;  Sta.  Maria,  Lintel,  Ill.  803,  804, 
198,  241;  Portal,  Ill.  800,  802,  143,  198, 
241,  330;  Tympanum,  Ill.  399,  801,  140, 
198,  241. 

Seraphim,  Ill.  298,  299, 1490. 

Sermon,  pseudo-Augustine,  322!.,  326f. 
Settignano,  Villa  I  Tatti,  Bodhisattva,  57. 


INDEX 


382 

Seu  d’Urgell,  Lombard  Influence,  186. 

Shepherds,  Ill.  5/,  122,  144.  IKO,  50^.  6^8, 
780,  go4,  1053,  1054,  1072a,  1149,  1130, 
1242,  51. 

Shields,  pointed,  49f, ;  round,  49f. 

Shindatsura-Taisho,  Nara),  C"?. 

Sibyl,  Ill.  loio. 

Siena,  Reredos  of  Duccio,  326. 

Sigena,  Antependium,  now  in  Lerida,  Mu¬ 
seum,  Ill.  555,  208. 

Signs,  The,  Ill.  322,  684;  of  the  Zodiac,  {see 
Zodiac). 

Simeon,  Ill.  1499,  1500,  1507,  1508,  286 ;  de 
hac  {urbe?),  Ill.  261;  of  Ragusa,  Ill.  231. 

Simon,  Feast  at  the  House  of.  Ill.  1063; 
Preparation  of.  Ill.  1266;  and  Nero,  Ill.  87. 

Simon  Magus,  Fall  of.  Ill.  73,  86;  Flight  of. 
Ill.  73, 318. 

Siponto,  Influence  of  Pisa,  185;  Pulpit,  31. 

Siren,  Ill.  26, 21 1,  677. 

Slaughter  of  the  Innocents,  Ill.  130,  438, 339, 
795,  797,.  79^,  1100, 1370. 

Sleeve,  Series  of  concentric  Rings,  148;  trail¬ 
ing,  335- 

Smyrna,  Greek  Physiologus,  97. 

Soest,  Germany,  Influence  of  Cluny  tym¬ 
panum,  through  Chartres,  140. 

Solomon,  Ill.  433,  433,  473,  842,  871,  1339, 
1464,  1468,  1303,  1312;  Dream  of.  Ill. 
363-366. 

Solsona,  Catedral,  Pilgrimage  Road,  182; 
Sculptures,  Ill.  33/,  35^,  150f.,  157,  163, 
221,  242,  245,  267;  Work  of  Gilbert,  255. 

Son,  The,  (The  Trinity),  Ill.  796. 

Soria,  San  Juan  de  Rabanera,  Tympanum, 
Ill.  879;  San  Nicolas,  Tympanum,  Ill. 
879;  Santo  Domingo,  Portal,  western.  Ill. 
795,  797,  79^,  MO,  143,  198,  33°;  Tym¬ 
panum,  western.  Ill.  796,  198. 

Souillac,  Fragments,  compared  with  Cluny, 
199f. ;  Pilgrimage  Road,  1 80 ;  Sculptures 
from  destroyed  Portal,  V\.  349-332 ;  199f., 
327;  Sculptures  in  west  wall,  Ill.  ^47-^48, 
S3,  57,  127,  199f.,  218,  275:  St.-Martin, 
Relief  in  tower.  Ill.  430,  250. 

Souls,  Weighing  of.  Ill.  293. 

Souvigny,  Sculptures  in  west  wall.  Ill.  124, 
123,  128f.,  234,  235,  236. 

Sovana,  Rib  vaults,  186. 

Spain,  Architecture,  during  X  century,  18. 

Spalato,  Silver  Book-cover,  207. 

Spandrels,  Figures  in,  142,  143. 

Spiral  Curls,  289!. ;  Leggings,  283. 

Spoleto,  Cattedrale,  Fagade,  western.  Ill. 
235,  236,  238;  Chiesa  di  Ponziano,  Ill.  237; 
San  Pietro,  Sculptures  in  fagade.  Ill.  239. 

Stained  Glass  of  the  North,  195. 

Stavelot,  Belgium,  Abbey,  Altar-piece,  I44, 
228. 


Stockholm,  Codex  Aureus,  Miniature,  325. 

Suger,  Abbot,  222. 

Supper,  The  Last,  {see  Christ). 

Supporting  Figures,  66f.,  68,  69,  74,  76,  166. 

Surgeres,  Fagade,  western.  Ill.  1092,  1093, 
190, 191,341. 

Synagogue,  The,  Ill.  1129. 

Tarascon,  Ste.-Marthe,  Console  near  Por¬ 
tal,  southern.  Ill.  1404a,  1404b,  299. 

Tarragona,  Catedral,  Capitals,  of  Cloister, 
Ill.  607-6/0;  of  Portal,  northern.  Ill.  603, 
606;  Sarcophagus,  284 ;  Tympanum,  north¬ 
ern,  Ill.  603,  604, 140. 

Tedesco,  Guglielmo,  202,  293,  294. 

Temple,  The,  Ill.  64. 

Temptation,  {see  Adam  and  Eve) ;  of  Christ, 
{see  Christ). 

Teramo,  Rib  Vaults,  186. 

Terlizzi,  Chiesa  del  Rosario,  Ill.  260;  Colle- 
giata.  Tympanum,  Ill.  260. 

Tetramorphs,  Ill.  767,  257. 

Thekla,  St.-Menas,  Coptic  Relief,  70,  289. 

Theodoric,  191. 

Theophilus,  Legend  of,  5X3.347,348. 

Thiers,  Mosaic  Pavement,  224. 

Third  Master  at  St.-Gilles,  278f.,  279,  280, 
291,292,297,300. 

Thouars,  Pilgrimage  Road,  179;  St.-Med- 
ard,  Fagade,  western,  Ill.  1039, 1060,  341. 

Three  Children  of  Israel  in  the  Fiery  Furnace, 
Ill.  287,  378. 

Three  Perforated  Dots,  291,  300,  301. 

Thuret,  Lintel,  southern.  Ill.  /139, 132f.,  236. 

Tischnowitz,  Influence  of  Cluny  tympanum 
through  Chartres,  140. 

Tobias,  Ill.  778,  779;  anoints  his  Father’s 
Eyes,  Ill.  43. 

Tobias  Master,  Ill.  43. 

Toledo,  Catedral,  Byzantine  stone  Relief,  74. 

Tones  of  Mediaeval  Music,  Ill.  7. 

Toro,  Portal,  northern,  Ill.  734,  733,  143, 
260,  330;  western.  Ill.  886,  887,  888,  889, 
264 ;  Relation  to  Santiago  de  Compostela, 
181. 

Torre  de’  Passeri,  San  Clemente  di  Casauria, 
Ciborium,  Ill.  221;  Portal,  western.  Ill. 
219,  220,  218;  Tympanum,  Ill.  220, 132. 

Torre  dei  Piccenardi,  Tympanum,  132. 

Torres,  El  Sepulcro,  Influence  of  Jerusalem, 
Church  of  the  Holy  Sepulchre,  185. 

Toscanella,  Santa  Maria  Maggiore,  218. 

Toulonges,  Portal,  Ill.  628. 

Toulouse,  Eglise  des  Cordeliers,  Sculptures, 
Ill.  480-483;  La  Daurade,  Capitals  of 
Cloister,  Ill.  288-293,  462-471,  135,  160, 
242f. ;  Jamb  Sculptures  of  the  Chapter- 
House,  243;  Pilgrimage  Road,  175,  179, 
181,  192;  Museum,  Capitals,  of  Cloister, 


INDEX 


III.  444-44g;  Capitals  and  Fragments  of 
Cloister  of  La  Daurade,  Ill.  288-2^^,  4.62- 
4JI,  47;  Capital  from  St.-Pons,  Ill.  i2’/4; 
Holy-water  Basin  from  Narbonne,  St.- 
Just,  Ill.  486,  48J,  248 ;  Sculptures  from 
Portal  of  Chapter-House,  Ill.  4^4-44^, 
4^4-4^^,  54, 14W. ;  Sculptures  said  to  come 
from  Eglise  des  Cordeliers,  Ill.  480-48^, 
85, 244f. ;  Sculptures  representing  the  mak¬ 
ing  of  capitals,  102 :  St. -Etienne,  Capitals 
of  Cloister,  Ill.  444-44^^  50,  245;  Pilgrim¬ 
age  Road,  17s,  179,  181,  186,  192,  195; 
Sculptures  from  Portal  of  Chapter-House, 
Ill.  434-443,  474-479, 149f.,  219,  221,  225, 
240f.,  256,  264,  278,  317,  337;  Sculptures 
compared  with  Autun,  158;  St.-Sernin, 
Capitals,  Ill.  315-317,  3^°,  3^1;  Lintel, 
southern.  Ill.  510,  134,  135;  Pilgrimage 
Road,  197,  296;  Portal,  southern,  Ill.  jo§- 
316,318,  13s,  136,  141,  143,  2Hf.,  252, 
303,  308;  Relation  to  Arles,  St.-Trophime, 
299 ;  to  Compostela  Basilica,  1 94 ;  to  Cluny, 
205!.;  to  Pilgrimage,  205!.;  Relief  in 
fagade,  southern.  Ill.  Jig,  74;  Reliefs  in 
Ambulatory,  (now  enwalled  in).  Ill.  2g6- 
307,322,3^,  54,  70,  73,  119,  135,  (56,  205, 
206f.,  248,  251,  276;  Statue  of  Christ,  com¬ 
pared  with  Charlieu,  73 ;  Relation  to  Mag- 
uelonne,  Portal,  Fragments,  269;  Rela¬ 
tion  to  Moissac,  Pier  Reliefs,  205,  206,  208 ; 
to  San  Millan  de  la  Cogolla,  area  de  San 
Felices,  209;  Tympanum,  southern  Ill. 
jo<J,  jop,  23,  74,  135,  260. 

Tournus,  193 ;  St.-Philibert,  Pilgrimage  Road, 

175-  .  .  .  T. 

Tours,  St.-Martin,  193;  Pilgrimage  Road, 
175, 179- 

Trani,  Cattedrale,  Bronze  Doors,  133;  Por¬ 
tal,  western.  Ill.  204-212,  132!.,  328 ;  Tran¬ 
sept,  southern,  exterior.  Ill.  240,  241 ;  Ogni- 
santi,  Narthex,  Ill.  201-205, 

Transfiguration,  {see  Christ). 

Trail,  Dalmatia,  Portal,  218. 

Trebizond,  The  Princess  of.  Ill.  12J5. 

Treves,  Manuscript,  IX  century,  (Apoca¬ 
lypse),  no;  Cathedrale,  Byzantine  Ivory 
Plaque,  48;  Gospels,  Ada,  46,  49,  152. 

Trinity,  The,  Ill.  734,  833. 

Troia,  Cattedrale,  185;  Bronze  Doors,  15; 
Capitals  analogous  to  Saulieu,  1 1 5 ;  Lintel, 
western.  Ill.  173:  Lunette,  Tympanum, 
southern.  Ill.  172, 1 5 ;  San  Basilio,  Pulpit,  9. 

Trois-Palis,  Fagade,  western.  Gable,  Ill.  1064, 
341- 

Troyes,  Ivory  Box,  XI  century,  190. 

Tudela,  Colegiata,  Capital  of  Cloister,  Ill. 
787,  isf)-.  Relief  in  Cloister,  Ill.  7go,  7gi, 
256 ;  Influence  of  Cluny  tympanum  through 
Chartres,  140;  Portal,  northern.  Ill.  78g, 


383 

256;  southern.  Ill.  788,  256;  western.  Ill. 
786,  256. 

Tuscan  Sculpture,  160. 

Twin  Portals,  130,  259, 

Tympanum,  Master  of.  Ill.  46,  113;  with 
Ascension,  140!.;  Representation  of  the 
Deity  in  an  Aureole,  supported  by  Angels, 
132f. 

Tyrsa,  Herobn,  21,  218. 

Unjust,  Death  of  The,  Ill. 

Ur,  I11.55<?. 

Utrecht,  Johanniskirche,  {see  Stadischen 
Museum),  219;  Psalter,  69,  75,  98,  190, 
3i3>  3Uj  324;  Stadischen  Museum,  Frag¬ 
ments  from  Johanniskirche,  220. 

Valcabrere,  Pilgrimage  Road,  179;  Portal, 
northern,  Ill.  4g8-502,  140, 244f. 

Valence,  Cathedrale,  Lintel  of  north  Tran¬ 
sept,  Ill.  1188,  134;  Tympanum,  south 
Transept,  Ill.  1187,  Ii8g,  236,  273;  St.- 
Jean,  186;  Rib  Vaults,  139. 

Van  Eyck,  Annunciation  at  St.-Petersburg 
represents  Transept  in  Catedral,  Santiago 
de  Compostela,  196. 

Varaize,  Portal,  southern.  Ill.  ggg-1002,  143, 
318. 

Venasque,  Battistero,  18;  Relation  to  Santi¬ 
ago  de  Compostela,  1 8 1 ;  Tomb  of  Boethius, 
14- 

Vendome,  La  Trinite,  Statues  at  Crossing, 
Ill.  1516-1518,  237,  258. 

Venice,  San  Marco,  83;  Altar-frontal,  iii, 
208 ;  Arches  of  narthex,  98 ;  Archivolts, 
152;  Art  of  Benedetto,  183;  Book-cover, 
48;  Byzantine  Angels,  244;  Columns  of 
Ciborio,  220;  Eastern  Derivation,  185; 
Miniature,  X-XI  century,  190;  Mosaic, 
in  one  of  the  Domes,  109,  325;  Mosaic  by 
Pasterini,  326;  Relief,  47,  227,  290. 

Venosa,  Santa  Trinita,  Building  Methods, 
105;  Capital,  Ill.  170;  Nave,  south  side. 
Ill.  168;  Portal,  southern.  Ill.  i6g;  rela¬ 
tion  to  Compostela  Basilica,  194;  Sculp¬ 
tures,  Ill.  17 1 ;  View,  Ill.  167. 

Vereaux,  Portal,  western.  Ill.  I47g-i48i,  258. 

Vermanton,  Portal,  western.  Ill.  I4g8,  I4gg, 
1500. 

Verona,  Cattedrale,  Cloisters,  187;  Lintel, 
74;  Portal,  4,  219;  Sculptures,  220;  Jamb 
Sculptures,  242;  Lombard  Sculpture,  183  : 
Santo  Stefano,  193:  San  Zeno,  Cloisters, 
187;  Sculpture,  1 9 1 ;  Sculptures  of  the  mak¬ 
ing  of  capitals,  102;  work  of  Nicolo,  133, 
144,  14S,  146,  148,  182,  226,  244,  325; 
Spandrels,  226;  Tympanum,  237. 

Veste  Coburg,  Metz  Group  of  Ivories,  75. 

Vezelay,  Capitals  of  nave.  Ill.  28, 30-35,  jg- 


INDEX 


384 

4?,  44,  4,  61,  87,  90,  120,  127,  138,  139; 
compared  with  Autun,  113;  Capitals  of 
narthex,  \\\.  2g,  36-38,  43,  43,  46,  I22f.; 
compared  with  Cluny,  9 if.;  Both  inspired 
by  Winchester  Manuscript,  98f. ;  compared 
with  Saulieu,  113;  Choir,  83:  compared 
with  Avenas,  118:  Consecration,  88f. ; 
Nave,  109, 139  :  Pilgrimage  Road,  175, 180 : 
Portal,  central  western.  Ill.  4J,  48,  48a,  4g, 
109,  121,  135,  136,  138,  144,  162,  234: 
Sculpture  of  The  Church,  63;  Tympanum, 
northern.  Ill.  30,  122;  southern.  Ill.  31; 
western.  Ill.  48-4(4;  compared  with  Autun, 
1 1 2 ;  derived  from  Cluny  Portal,  109. 

“Vezelay  Master  No.  i,”  34,34a,  119. 

“Vezelay  Master  No.  2,”  \\\.  33-38. 

“Vezelay  Master  No.  3,”  Ill.  jp,  40,  139. 

Vices,  Ill.  931,  932. 

Vich,  Antependia,  208. 

Vicq,  Frescos,  50. 

Vienna,  Cutbrecht  Gospels,  262 ;  Figdor  Col¬ 
lection,  Ivory,  38  ;  Imperial  Library,  Trea¬ 
tise  on  Music,  79,  1 61 ;  Schatz-Kammer, 
Cameo,  XI  century,  48 ;  St.  Stephen,  Tym¬ 
panum,  132f. 

Vienne,  Cathedrale,  166;  Capitals,  164,  165; 
Fragments  in  north  vestibule.  Ill.  1213- 
121J,  166 ;  Museum,  Relief  of  Tympanum, 
from  St.-Pierre,  Ill.  1219a;  St.-Andre-le- 
Bas,  Capital  of  nave.  Ill.  1218, 1219, 165f., 
294,  298 ;  compared  with  Cluny,  85f. ;  St.- 
Pierre,  Relief  of  Tympanum,  now  in  Mu¬ 
seum,  Ill.  1219a,  166. 

Vigeois,  Capital,  Ill.  ?57,  Reliefs  near  Portal, 
northern.  Ill.  1260, 1261. 

Vilagrassa,  Portal,  western.  Ill.  613. 

Villacazar,  Pilgrimage  Road,  179,  195. 

Villafranca,  Pilgrimage  Road,  175. 

Villavicioso,  Santa  Maria,  Ill.  883 ;  Portal, 
western.  Ill.  884,  883,  220. 

Villefranche,  Pilgrimage  Road,  182. 

Villogen,  Reliefs  near  Portal,  western.  Ill. 
1083, 1084, 125. 

Virgin,  The,  Ill.  98,  103,  108,  109,  113,  130, 
J73, 179,  202,  227,  231,  232,  233,  239,  261, 
375,  403,  430,  450,  451,  479,  4S^,  4^4,  4^5, 
486, 309, 328, 332, 333,  71 1,  716,  734,  741, 
769,  770,  793,  867,  871,  874,  876,  883,  986, 
1048,  1070,  1094,  1113,  J130,  1223,  1232, 
1284,  1299,  1420,  1484,  1483,  i486,  1492, 
1497,  1314,  1313,  1317,  56,  57f.,  245,  246, 
247f.,  260,  267;  Annunciation,  Ill.  14,  i6, 
31,  121,  130,  164,  178,  186,  191,  193,  196, 
201,  202,  232,  234, 376, 386, 304, 333, 334, 
^33,  714, 721, 7(>2, 772, 777, 829a,  841, 

892,  948,  939,  1048,  1072a,  iioi,  1121, 
1/49,  1130,  1164,  1173,  1188,  1221,  1291, 

133^,  23^9,  2370,  I4r(>,  14S5,  1517, 

56,  85,  160,  244,  252,  322 ;  Assumption,  Ill. 


923, 1262;  Coronation,  Ill.  873,  887, 1307, 
132^,  25^4',  Death,  Ill.  1262;  Dormition, 
Ill.  873;  Entombment,  Ill.  887;  Marriage, 
Ill.  780,  781 ;  Resurrection,  Ill.  1167,  /307, 
1311;  Symbol,  Ill.  1169,  1170;  under 
Canopy,  245. 

Virgins,  Foolish,  Ill.  490,  491,  984,  987,  989, 
996,  997,  2004,  1012,  1014,  1131,  1441; 
Wise,  Ill.  444,  443,  490,  491,  984,  989,  990, 
993,  997,  2004, 1012, 1130, 1442. 

Virtues,  \\\.394, 1474. 

Visitation,  Ill.  31,  83, 121, 130, 186, 192, 196, 
232,  246,  237, 377, 304,  638,  714,  717, 960, 
1076,  IIOI,  1149, 1130, 1176,  1177,  1291, 
1416,  1492. 

Vitoria,  Pilgrimage  Road,  179,  195. 

Vizille,  Chapelle  du  Cimetiere,  Tympanum, 
Ill.  1183,  129,  140. 

Volterra,  Duomo,  Interior,  Ill.  249;  Pulpit, 
Ill.  194-196,  160,  200f.,  276. 

Volvic,  Capital,  Ill.  1207,  149,  237;  Console 
in  Choir,  Ill.  1206,  lyj. 

Voussure  Sculpture,  144;  radiating,  143. 

Vouvant,  Fagade,  northern.  Ill.  1136,  341. 

Washing  the  Feet,  {see  Christ). 

Washington,  Freer  Collection,  32. 

Water  Stratford,  Tympanum,  132f. 

Wattling,  97f. 

Widukind,  Tomb  of,  8,  149. 

Wilgelmus,  {see  Guglielmo). 

Wiligelmus,  {see  Guglielmo). 

Winchester,  Charter  of  King  Edgar  to  New 
Minster,  {see  London,  British  Museum), 
100;  Psalter  of  St.-Mary’s,  318;  Psalter  of 
St.-Swithun’s  Priory,  now  in  London, 
British  Museum,  318;  School  of.  Manu¬ 
scripts  inspired  capitals  of  Cluny  and  Veze¬ 
lay,  98f. 

Winds,  The,  Ill.  31. 

Wisdom  vs.  Folly,  Ill.  1180. 

Witnesses,  Ill.  931 ;  of  the  Apocalypse,  134. 

Wrath,  Ill.  34a,  1181. 

Wurzburg,  University  Library,  Book-cover, 
161. 

Ydes,  Porch,  western.  Ill.  1221, 1222. 

Yolande,  Ill.  243. 

York,  Influence  of  Mateo’s  work  at  Santiago 
de  Compostela,  265 ;  Virgin,  246. 

Youth  who  was  hanged,  and  miraculously 
restored  to  life  by  St.  James,  Ill.  743,  743- 

Zacharias,  Ill.  1176;  Annunciation  to.  Ill. 
63,  191,  192,  281,  1031,  1177,  1178,  1267, 
1369, 1370. 

Zamora,  Catedral,  Relation  to  Angouleme, 
31 1 ;  Relief  of  Portal,  south  Transept,  Ill. 
740,  741,  252,  31 1,  312:  La  Magdalena, 


INDEX 


385 


Tomb  in  Church,  Ill.  890, 891,  237. 

Zara,  218;  Museo  San  Donato,  Lintel,  28, 
236 ;  Sculpture,  65 ;  San  Lorenzo,  28,  236. 
Zaragoza,  Pilgrimage  Road,  182. 

Zechariah,  325. 

Zelemie,  Ill.  75J. 


Zig-zag  Edges  of  Draperies,  72,  73,  74. 
Zodiac,  Ill.  48,  49,  IJ7,  ij8,  490,  491,  696, 
987,  988,  993,  997,  loii,  1149, 1208, 1263, 
1498, 1499;  Aries,  Taurus  and  Gemini,  Ill. 
1208. 

Zwartnotz,  Spandrel  Figures,  20. 


McGRATH- SHERRILL  PRESS 
BOSTON 


\ 

i 


! 

•I 


) 


A'  V 


• 


I  / 


1. 


